The seventh and
final section begins with a letter to Lindsey Anderson of the
Policy Group in the Crown Office about her pathetic response
to earlier correspondence, followed by two further letters to
Solicitor General Elish Angiolini, asking her, inter alia, if
she was really interested in those who buggered boys at Queen
Victoria School (QVS) in Dunblane. LINK
94 Victoria Terr.
Lindsey Anderson, (Policy Group)
25 Chambers Street
Tuesday 15th July 03
Dear Ms Anderson,
Formal complaint to Elish Angiolini the
Solictor General for Scotland re allegations of abuse and bullying
at Queen Victoria School Dunblane.
I refer to the above complaint addressed to
the Solicitor General on 8th June (e-mail) and 14th June (letter)
and to which you say in the first paragraph of your letter of
14th July you respond, “on behalf of the Solicitor General”. I
would comment on your letter as follows:
1. The second paragraph
of your letter echoes the reason why I chose to treat this matter
very seriously and make every effort to verify the allegations
made to me, namely, that allegations of physical and sexual
abuse at a school are very serious matters.
You go on to support the position taken in
a letter of 3rd June from Detective Superintendent John Anderson
of Central Scotland Police to me, but you do not take into account
my response to this letter, which details my valid reasons for
not accepting his proposals that I complain to Central Scotland
Police. Nor do you touch on my reasons for not recommending
John Anderson’s proposals to the ex-housemaster, which
are also set out in detail in my response to John Anderson.
The third paragraph of your letter seems to
imply that the role of the Procurator Fiscal is not directly
concerned with the investigation and prosecution of crime, which
you imply is actually the role of the police. Your promotion
of Central Scotland Police in investigative matters over the
Procurator Fiscal Service continues in the fourth and fifth
paragraphs of your letter, where you show some personal expertise
for investigation by spotting that the ex-housemaster is named
in the papers.
My concerns about the past activities of the
police (which might involve criminal conduct) and your praise
for the work of the police Family Unit are dealt with in paragraph
six of your letter.
Unlike the ex-housemaster I have no direct
knowledge of Central Scotland Police other than second hand
knowledge gleaned from the Official Transcript of the Dunblane
Inquiry and my impressions as set out below are limited accordingly.
2. For the avoidance of doubt, I do have
a high regard for some members of the police, which is soured
by those bad apples who bring the service into disrepute.
I do not doubt that the Family Unit is served
by many fine people and it is well known that between 1991 and
1993 the Family Unit (then called the Force Child Protection
Unit) in the person of Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes produced
recommendations and a report on Thomas Hamilton the Dunblane
mass murderer, which, if acted on would have resulted in Thomas
Hamilton being charged with 10 criminal offences and his gun
licence being revoked. LINK
Another upstanding member of the Central Scotland
Police force with responsibility for the Child Protection Unit
who comes shining through from the Transcript of the Dunblane
Inquiry is Detective Chief Inspector Joseph Holden, who supported
Detective Sergeant Hughes in his attempts to bring charges and
revoke Hamilton’s firearms licence.
Again from the Official Transcript of the Dunblane
Inquiry it is apparent that someone also meriting praise is
Detective Constable Ann Anderson of the Firearms Licensing Department,
who after interviewing Hamilton as part of his firearms licence
renewal tried to revoke his licence.
The commendable actions of the above police
officers are in marked contrast to the officious actions of
Depute Chief Constable Douglas McMurdo who overruled Detective
Sergeant Hughes’ recommendations in his report, and Detective
Inspector John Anderson who dissuaded Detective Constable Ann
Anderson from recommending refusal of Hamilton’s licence
renewal, despite the strong negative feelings that Ann Anderson
had about Hamilton.
Contrasts such as the upstanding actions of
the former group of police officers with the questionable actions
of the latter group are notable throughout the Dunblane Inquiry
and have caused some people, including myself, to conclude that
Hamilton’s Freemasonry protected him in life and in death.
This would explain the inexplicable.
At a much earlier date (1989-1991) the ex-housemaster
who related his experiences at Queen Victoria School to me also
concluded that Freemasonry was the common denominator in the
abuse of power that allowed a privileged clique including Sheriffs,
Fiscals, and Thomas Hamilton to visit and in some cases abuse
pupils at that school.
It is noticeable that you have not sought to
address my genuine concerns with regard to Masonic membership. This
is not unusual in Scotland and in fact Lord Cullen failed to
respond to a submission to the Dunblane Inquiry regarding his
Masonic membership and a request that police witnesses be required
to state their Masonic status.
It is not strictly accurate to say that he
ignored it as he concluded that it should be buried from the
public for 100 years. A subject you are familiar
with, as you have refused my lawyers request for me to view
the 100-year closure documents.
In paragraphs seven and eight of your letter
you deal with the police complaints system, which you note is
available to the ex-housemaster. I have some knowledge
of this system, having been involved in a complaint about the
actions of members of Fife Constabulary for the past 2 years
and it can be compared with wrestling smoke.
3. Reformers universally condemn self-regulation
of the police force, and my experiences are in line with the
generally held perceptions of this discredited process. You
then deal with the possibility that an Assistant Chief Constable
can report a police officer to the Area Procurator Fiscal and
that she might commence her own investigation.
Again without wishing to be disrespectful to
the various Depute Chief Constables of Central Region from Norman
McLeod in 1977 to Douglas McMurdo in 1996, who granted firearms
licences to Thomas Hamilton, their actions do not engender confidence
in the objectivity of their office in dealing with a complaint
connected with Thomas Hamilton.
I am disappointed to note that the Solicitor
General does not seem to have taken any of my concerns seriously,
and I find her rejection of my complaint sad and inexplicable.
The complaint was clearly not one that I could have taken to
Central Scotland Police.
I am particularly disappointed that the Solicitor
General was not receptive to my suggestion that she initiate
interviews with the pupils who attended Queen Victoria School
at the time of the ex-housemaster's allegations. We, the
ex-housemaster and I, are perhaps less than objective given
our personal experiences, which may have coloured our views
on Freemasonry. Central Scotland Police are similarly
subjective (post-Dunblane) in their defence of the tarnished
reputation of that force.
It seems to me as a layman that the Solicitor
General would have been able to employ specialist investigators
would have been ideally suited for the task of assessing the
veracity or otherwise of complaints that pupils were abused
by an elite clique dominated by leading lights in Central Scotland
public life. To me this would seem a sensible measure,
as members of the legal establishment may have been involved
in the abuse or the cover-up of the abuse of pupils at Queen
Victoria School Dunblane.
Despite the above, I will pass on the Solicitor
General’s request that the exhousemaster take his complaint
about abuse at Queen Victoria School Dunblane to Detective Superintendent
John Anderson of Central Scotland Police.
As was the case with the previous request from
Detective Superintendent John Anderson that I urge the ex-housemaster
to contact Central Scotland Police, I regret that in all honesty
I am unable to add my voice to the Solicitor General’s
I will write to the ex-housemaster copying
your letter on behalf of the Solicitor General and will advise
you of his response in due course.
P.S. The Detective Inspector John Anderson
who in 1995 dissuaded Detective Constable Ann Anderson from
withdrawing Thomas Hamilton’s firearms licence and the
Detective Superintendent John Anderson who asks me to urge the
ex-housemaster to contact him are not by any chance the same
person are they?
C.C. The ex-housemaster. Return
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
94 Victoria Terrace
Tel: 01383 729869
Elish Angiolini, QC
The Solicitor General for Scotland
25 Chambers Street
Thursday 17th July 2003
Dear Mrs Angiolini,
Your rejection of my formal complaint re
allegations of abuse at Queen Victoria School Dunblane.
With reference to the above which was received
in a letter dated 14th July from Lindsey Anderson on your behalf
I would ask you to reconsider your suggestion that I accept
the suggestions made by Detective Superintendent John Anderson
in his letter to me and take my complaint to Central Scotland
Police for the following reasons:
- Officers of Central Scotland Police
and their actions in, among other things, breaking down
the ex-housemaster’s door could prove to be an actionable
part of my complaint.
- A Procurator Fiscal was stated
as being one of a number of visitors to Queen Victoria School
and could prove to be an actionable part of my complaint.
- Detective Superintendent John
Anderson of Central Scotland Police and many other officers
in Central Scotland Police who had dealings with Thomas
Hamilton might not be seen to be objective in dealing with
a complaint which includes Hamilton’s apparent unauthorised
and suspect associations with Queen Victoria School.
- The fact that Lord George Robertson
who was said to be a visitor to the school (and has reacted
with such hostility to my enquiries) might have a son in
Central Scotland Police might give the impression of a lack
of impartiality if that force dealt with this complaint.
- Central Scotland Police have refused
to provide me with correspondence from Lord George Robertson
causing me to resort to my solicitors in an attempt to find
out what has been written about me by Robertson sufficient
to cause the police to contact me and then ignore my repeated,
reasonable request to be appraised of the content of his
Given all of the above reasons and those previously
stated in my letter to you and the Central Scotland Police I
respectfully ask that you consider using your own investigators
to question pupils who attended Queen Victoria School Dunblane
at the time of the allegations and when Thomas Hamilton was
associated with the school (1989-1996).
Thomas Minogue. Return
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
94 Victoria Terr.
Mrs Elish Angiolini
Solicitor General for Scotland
Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
Monday 29th September 03
Dear Mrs Angiolini
Your rejection of my “Complaint into
allegations of bullying and abuse at Queen Victoria School Dunblane”.
I refer to the response on your behalf by Lindsey
Anderson dated 8th August. This letter was in response
to my complaint re the above, which was delivered to you for
the second time by Messengers at Arms on 24th July. I
had hoped that by delivering my complaint to you in person I
may have received a substantive reply from you but instead I
received the normal pathetic response from the Policy Group.
The complete failure by you to deal with any
of the points raised in my letter leaves me feeling angry and
bemused especially when I watched you in a recent television
interview talk of your desire to bring greater accessibility
to the general public and remove the pomposity associated with
your position. I can only conclude that this was rhetoric
on your part.
The only matter of substance you did deal with
in your letter of 8th August was something that I quoted as
one of many reasons why it seemed inappropriate for me to make
my complaint to Central Scotland Police.
That you have
wilfully chosen to take an example of a perceived lack of objectivity
in Central Scotland Police as a complaint mystifies me, and
begs the question: are you really interested in punishing those
who buggered boys at Queen Victoria School Dunblane between
1989 and 1991?
For the avoidance of doubt the fact that Lord
Robertson and Central Scotland Police refuse to answer correspondence
or reveal the contents of Lord Robertson’s letter to the
Chief Constable was not put to you as a complaint as you well
I should also point out that since my last
letter I have been informed as a result of a request for information
under the Data Protection Act that the Chief Constable of Central
Scotland Police has advised Lord George Robertson that he has
investigated me to determine my “motives and character”
(presumably at the behest of Lord Robertson). This unwarranted
measure will form the basis of a complaint being drawn up by
my legal advisor.
That Central Scotland Police will not respond
to simple questions such as: “Is Lord Robertson’s
son a member of the force?” is galling to me, and I again
bring it to your attention as an example of actions unlikely
to inspire confidence in the objectivity of that force.
I do so for the record without any expectation that you will
treat this matter seriously.
In light of your repeated refusal to deal with
my complaint or allocate it to another police force I must conclude
that you wish me to complain to a police force that forms part
of my complaint and in which I have little confidence.
With no other alternative avenue of complaint I am left with
no choice but to do as you suggest and I will lodge my dossier
as a formal complaint with Central Scotland Police today.
I would also respond to an apparent contradiction
to in your last letter that the Solicitor General’s office
did not have investigators. I have recently been interviewed
by Bernard Ablett at the Crown Office on another matter, which
he at least was under the impression he was investigating.
Perhaps the two hours I spent at the Crown Office in Chambers
Street being interviewed were part of a hoax by a bogus investigator?
To conclude I would like to be found mistaken
in my belief that the ex-housemaster was truthful in his accounts
of physical and sexual abuse at Queen Victoria School. However
if I am correct, I dearly hope that the abused boys come forward
of their own volition in the future at which time I will not
be slow to publicise the difficulties I have encountered in
having the pupils of the school between 1989 and 1992 interviewed
by the appropriate authorities. LINK
C.C. S.O.S; Pagans; etc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *