On 30th September
2003, I (Tom Minogue) made a formal complaint
to Central Scotland Police re
allegations of physical and sexual abuse at Queen Victoria
School Dunblane. Despite this detailed
and comprehensive document, giving details of abuse at QVS,
Thomas Hamilton’s presence and influence
at QVS, and the failures of HM Commissioners
at QVS to discharge their duty of care—the
police have yet to investigate these serious allegations.
Is it because the allegations
relate to abuse of pupils by leading members of Scotland’s
elite at a military
school run by the MOD?
Is it because the Commissioners
at QVS Dunblane,
who include the Secretary of State for Scotland,
the Lord Justice-Clerk, and General Officer
Commanding, Army (Scotland), were negligent
as Commissioners, in that they allowed visitors including Thomas
Hamilton access to the pupils at the school?
Is it because the Commissioners/police
were negligent when the allegations of bullying and abuse at the
school were first made by a housemaster in 1989—allegations
which, if properly
investigated at the time, might have led to criminal
charges being brought against Hamilton
and others, thus preventing the 1996 Dunblane massacre?
I would set out my
involvement leading to the police complaint as follows:
On 29th January 2004,
while processing a petition through the Scottish Parliament,
I was asked by the Justice 2 Committee
of that parliament to submit examples of cases where membership
of organisations such as the Freemasons
had caused problems in court cases.
Though strictly speaking
not a court case, the Dunblane Public Inquiry
and the events leading to it are seen by many as an example of improper
Masonic influence shaping events.
I researched these matters and in so doing corresponded by e-mail
and telephone with a teacher who had been a housemaster at Queen
Victoria School Dunblane
between 1989 and 1992. This teacher had made allegations
of physical and sexual abuse at the school.
The allegations made
by the ex-housemaster formed part of my submission to the Justice
2 Committee in February 2004.
The Dunblane example was one of five cases cited
by me. The Justice 2 Committee
took the unusual if not unique step of refusing to print any of
submissions. They did so without giving
their reasons for doing so, but hinted that my submissions might
be defamatory. Why?
If the Justice
2 Committee had genuinely considered that extracts
from the five submissions I made were defamatory, they could have
selectively censored the offending sections, deleting names or whatever,
and posted the redacted versions. This is normal practice.
One of the cases I
cited was a Social Security Commissioner’s decision, a public
document, reproduced with the permission of the appellant and freely
obtainable to members of the public. The remaining four
examples cited had all been the subject of press coverage—so
what I was claiming was hardly new or actionable. Furthermore,
I had also reproduced my submissions in full on the internet where
they sit to this day. Why the total censoring?
I was left to conclude
that, within my comments regarding the Dunblane Inquiry,
the mention of events at Queen Victoria School
and Thomas Hamilton’s links to the
school, which at that time had not appeared in the national press,
was the cause of the draconian measure of total censorship of all
of my submissions.
The specific new material
I referred to was:
The possibility that membership of the Speculative Society
of Edinburgh might have resulted in Lord Cullen
1702) either consciously or subconsciously steering clear
of a scandal that involved his superior in the judiciary and fellow
members of the Spec who were governors
at the school. Prince
Philip another member of the Speculative
Society was Patron of the School.
b/ The possibility
that the person who gave Lord Cullen his
commission and terms of reference to inquire into the events leading
up to and including the Dunblane massacre,
the Scottish Secretary, Michael Forsyth who was the Chairman of
the Board of Management at Queen Victoria School
might have resulted in Lord Cullen either
consciously or subconsciously steering clear of a scandal that involved
c/ The possibility
that Lord Cullen who was himself a visitor
to the school between 1989 and 2002 might have been embarrassed
if it became known that another visitor to the school at the same
time was Thomas Hamilton.
d/ The possibility
of embarrassment due to the fact that the many visitors to the school
who arrived at QVS in big
fancy cars (some with flags and crest badges) and took
boys away for the weekend were said to have included judges and
other senior members of the establishment.
After failing to have
the Justice 2 Committee consider or comment
on the examples that they had requested, I nevertheless continued
to correspond and meet with the ex-housemaster at QVS
and researched his claims. As part of this process I
looked at the four distinct accusations he made, which were:
1/ That Thomas
Hamilton was a frequent and influential visitor to
2/ That numerous complaints
were made about bullying and abuse at QVS
between 1989 and 1992, but these complaints were not investigated
by the police.
3/ That Her Majesty’s
Commissioners were in ignorance or denial of the above facts.
4/ That Masonic
influence assisted in the abuse at the school and prevented a proper
investigation taking place.
 The first claim
that Hamilton was a frequent and influential
visitor to QVS was easily confirmed by
reference to the Official Report of the Dunblane Inquiry,
which quoted three separate witnesses who spoke of Hamilton’s
association with QVS as follows:
Jones Ogilvie his neighbour spoke of Hamilton
holding camps for his boys club in the school grounds.
Mark Ure another neighbour of Hamilton’s
spoke of how his ex-wife used the shooting range at QVS
Steven Boal a friend and colleague of Hamilton
in his boys clubs spoke of how Hamilton
had used his influence at the school to obtain him (Boal)
a job as a teacher at a summer school at QVS.
Despite these three
witnesses who spoke of Hamilton’s
(an unemployed person at the time) significant presence in the school
no challenge to this evidence was made and no cross-examination
of this evidence was led by any of the legal representatives at
the Inquiry, or Lord Cullen; nor does
QVS feature in Lord Cullen’s
activities at other schools were examined and cross-examined and
featured in detail in Lord Cullen’s
 The second allegation
that numerous complaints of bullying and abuse were made to 76 parents,
the MOD, the Education Institute of Scotland,
the Queen, the police, a MP, and finally
to the European Parliament, is evident from the documentation of
the ex-housemaster. Also evident from the documentation
is that the police smashed the door of his flat down with
a sledgehammer. At this time they removed all of his
complaint files relating to the abuse and only returned some of
them. Neither the police nor the MOD
investigated the specific allegations made by the ex-housemaster
and this is confirmed in a letter from the Minister for Education.
 The third allegation
that Her Majesty’s Commissioners were ignorant of, or in denial
of, Hamilton’s role in QVS
and the accusations of the ex-housemaster re bullying and
abuse is evident from the correspondence I carried out with the
Commissioners and others linked to the school. To a
man, the Commissioners who responded stated that they had no knowledge
of Thomas Hamilton being a visitor to
the school. That three Secretaries of State for Scotland,
the Lord Justice Clerk, rulers of the
Queen's Navy, Army and Air Force were
unaware of events that I was able to establish by simple research
is unbelievable. The proverbial dogs on the street knew
that Hamilton was an influential visitor
to the school but those charged with the legal responsibility for
guardianship of the boarders at QVS to
a man had no idea of this fact. Why?
With regard to the
allegations of abuse and bullying, again almost to a man, the Commissioners
who responded to my questions were in ignorance of, or in denial
of, these matters. This is incredible as the complaints
by the ex-housemaster were in the public domain—in Hansard,
in complaints to them personally from the then housemaster, and
in reports from the Educational Institute of Scotland.
one Commissioner refused to answer my written questions and one
person named as a visitor to the QVS,
George Robertson sent me a written refusal
(on NATO headed paper). I
later learned that he enlisted the assistance of Central
Scotland Police’s Chief Constable to investigate
my motives and background. I learned of this fact inadvertently
when my solicitor sought to obtain the letters from Robertson
to the police and the results of the police investigation.
My lawyer's requests to Central
Scotland Police and NATO
for the release of information concerning me have met with refusals.
 The fourth allegation,
that Freemasonry was the factor that allowed
all sorts of illegal actions to take place without consequence,
cannot be proved, but it cannot be ruled out. It should
be remembered that these allegations were first made in the period
1989-1992 (4-7 years before the Dunblane massacre),
when the then housemaster was convinced that Freemasonry
was hindering the investigation into, and punishment for, physical
and sexual abuse at a school in Dunblane.
was convinced that the ex-housemaster at QVS
was telling the truth in his allegations and most of what he was
stating was verifiable by simple research. Given that
the Central Scotland Police were complicit
in the forced entry into the ex-housemaster's flat, confiscation
and refusal to return complaint documents I thought it inappropriate
to make a complaint to that police force.
decided instead to make a complaint to the Lord
Justice Clerk, Lord Gill
who is ex-officio a Commissioner of the QVS.
I had hoped that Lord Gill would have
been able to instigate an independent or judicial inquiry.
Lord Gill accepted my detailed complaint
in the form of a C.D.,
but after studying it for some time advised me that he thought the
appropriate course of action would be to have Her Majesty’s
Commissioners to QVS look into my complaint!
rejected Lord Gill’s offer to have
those who were the subject of a complaint pass judgement on themselves,
and decided to petition the Solicitor General
the gravity of the complaint I directed a letter and C.D. of complaint
personally to the Solicitor
General, but responses to me were made
by members of her staff in terms that I should make my complaint
to Central Scotland Police.
I eventually resorted
to hiring Messengers-At-Arms to serve on the Solicitor
General the complaint C.D. and a letter explaining
why it was inappropriate for Central Scotland Police
to deal with this matter. A member of the Solicitor
General’s staff responded in terms that I should
make complaint to Central Scotland Police.
With all avenues of
complaint exhausted I reluctantly handed in my complaint to Central
Scotland Police’s Family Unit at Bannockburn
on 30th April 2004. No members of the family unit were
present when I visited Bannockburn police
station so I left two C.Ds. and one hard-bound copy of the complaint
with the desk officer.
A month elapsed with
neither acknowledgment, nor response to my complaint from the police
so I enlisted my MSP to press them for a response. In
due course I was advised by Central Scotland Police
in writing that they would investigate the allegations of abuse
and bullying at Queen Victoria School,
if and when they had the chance.
In the summer of 2004,
I was advised by the ex-housemaster that he had received a phone
call from an officer with Strathclyde Police who said that he would
be visiting him to interview him with a view to taking a statement.
At the time of writing there has been no interview.
Copies of all documents
concerning the above can be provided by contacting me at the following
Minogue, 94 Victoria Terrace, Dunfermline, Fife, KY12
Telephone: 01383 729869