Sinister reasons for [Dunblane] inquiry?

Sir, - I am wholeheartedly in agreement with both Jim Brunton's excellent letter (19 October) and Ian Bell's article (Commentary, 18 October) asking what the purpose was of the Dunblane inquiry. LINK  Mr Brunton believes the inquiry was totally unnecessary, stating that "there has not been nor is there likely to be, a bigger waste of public money, time and energy".  Ian Bell asked, "what was the point of the inquiry?" insinuating, convincingly, that there was no point.

Of course, there was no point if the final decision was to lie with the Government.  The inquiry merely allowed it scope to improve on Lord Cullen's recommendations.  I would suggest that the inquiry was the civic equivalent of a "show trial", a whitewash, set up in the hope of appeasing a devastated community. LINK

I also believe there was a more sinister reason: the forum presented Freemasonry with the opportunity to deny that Thomas Hamilton was a member.

Some time before the inquiry started, it was alleged in the media that Hamilton was a member of Freemasonry. LINK   Lord Cullen reported that "evidence was given which indicated that Hamilton was not a member of the Masons ", but, as Ian Bell wrote: "It would be more significant still if, as there is good reason to believe, Lord  Cullen is wrong ..."

The Inquiry has only bolstered my belief that it was arranged for a specific purpose: to "divert the discourse" from Masonic collusion.   As Ian Bell said in his article, perhaps in a different frame of reference: "Cullen has restricted the argument [and] has provided the Government with its fudge.