Thomas Minogue
94 Victoria Terr.
Dunfermline
Fife
KY12 0LU
Tel:01383 729869
e-mail: tomminogue@btinternet.com

Lindsey Anderson, (Policy Group)
Crown Office
25 Chambers Street
EDINBURGH
EH1 1LA
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 request.

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.

Yours faithfully,
Thomas Minogue.

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 to IndexLINK

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thomas Minogue
94 Victoria Terrace

Dunfermline
Fife
KY12 0LU
Tel: 01383 729869

Elish Angiolini, QC
The Solicitor General for Scotland
Crown Office
25 Chambers Street
EDINBURGH
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:

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).

Yours faithfully,
Thomas Minogue.                                                                            Return to IndexLINK

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thomas Minogue
94 Victoria Terr.
Dunfermline
FIFE
KY12 0LU

Mrs Elish Angiolini
Solicitor General for Scotland
Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
EDINBURGH
EH11 1LA
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? (Ed ~ The boy-buggering gentry.)

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 know.

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

Yours faithfully,
Tom Minogue.
C.C. S.O.S; Pagans; etc.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Quick Menu Home Page Dunblane Letters Gagged Petition to end 100-year Gagging Order Oral Hearing of Petition PE652 Petition to out Masonic Membership Dunblane Abuse School Dunblane Killer Attacked Dunblane QVS Dunblane - New Inquiry MSPs Forsake Dunblane Dunblane Tragedy Dunblane Primary School Dunblane Cover-up Dunblane Digest Dunblane Paedophiles Dunblane Masonic Link Cullen Denies Masonic link Dunblane Petition PE948 Crown Office Criticised Realm Patrons Question Boyd 20th Anniversary Remembered Promises But Still No Investigation Dunblane Latest Dunblane Full Index Freemasonry Exposed Exposing The Illegal Poll Tax Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers Vehicular Homicide Of Diana - Poem