From ‘Tortured by the State’
‘A member of the police shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the discharge of his duties or which is likely to give the impression amongst members of the pubic that it may so interfere.’
Police Regulations Act (2003)
Quite remarkable is the claim by Freemasons that there is nothing wrong with secrecy. For those of us who concern ourselves with ethics and morality, with right and wrong, we would say that the very notion of secrecy in a democracy is contradictory. What kind of democracy shrouds itself in secrecy? After all, surely democracy is synonymous with transparency, not secrecy. Yet, these secret society people remain obstinate in their insistence that they have nothing to hide. They permit access to open meetings, yet they do not permit access to their meetings which take place behind closed doors and blacked out windows.
“I wonder whether it is wise for a persons whose work requires that they enjoy public confidence to be members of a secret society, one of the aims of which is mutual self-advancement.“
Chris Mullins 1992
Yet Freemasons, who are incredibly defensive, paranoid and protective of their secret society, remain insistent that there is nothing wrong their secret club. David Staples, the Chief executive of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), said: “…being a Freemason helps those members in roles serving society in the broader sense, including journalists, politicians, policemen and lawyers, to be better in those jobs by encouraging them to act as better people themselves. Their membership is a positive for both them as individuals, and for society at large.” The idiocy of this comment belies disbelief. Where do I begin? Perhaps a good place to start is at the beginning. I do not mean the initiation ceremony which each member must undertake, but with the oath they swear to their secret club. After all, for Freemasons this oath supersedes any other oath they take, including the one which they swear to in a court of law.
The Oaths
‘Masonic secrecy is reinforced by a series of bloodcurdling oaths administered at bizarre ceremonies in which cadidates are, or were, until recently, bare-breasted, with nooses about their necks.‘
Chris Mullins (former MP) 1992
The people who I encountered in August 2017, have demonstrated that they are more than happy to break the oath of law which must be sworn in court. That oath states that they will “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Evidently, by fabricating evidence and then presenting that falsified evidence to a court of law is not telling the truth, rather, that is misleading a court of law, and is a crime known as perjury and also perverting the course of justice. Yet, such is the determination of these people who I encountered to fabricate evidence, they had no qualms about doing this. Obviously, there is no morality here. Moreover, secret societies are known to have no morality. Those of us who know a little more about these clandestine organisations will know that they operate by deception, not by truth, honesty and integrity. And herein lies the contradiction, for is not justice synonymous with truth, honesty and integrity? It is certainly not synonymous with deception – unless Freemasonry is involved.
‘Membership of the Freemasons requires the swearing of solemn oaths, on pain of death if breached, of secrecy and obediency to the mysteries of Freemasonry.‘
The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (2021)
Psychopathy
To my mind, anyone who believes there is no conflict of interest between being a member of a secret society and working in justice, then they must be seriously ill-informed or somewhat deluded. Secret societies are clandestine organisations, shrouded in secrecy and known for deception; while justice is an evidence-based industry synonymous with transparency and fairness. Bearing in mind the oath Freemasons must swear, it is apparent, to me at least, that their allegiance is first and foremost to their secret society and to one another, not the people they are supposed to serve. Brian Paddick, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner, joined the Freemasons at the age of twenty-one. He wrote a little about Freemasonry in the police.
“I asked the superintendent if he was ‘on the square’ and his attitude changed completely; suddenly he became my best friend and showed me his Masonic regalia, the decorated apron worn in Masonic meetings … I found his complete volte-face quite disappointing but it was not the last time someone’s attitude to me was to change instantly when he discovered my Masonic links.”
Freemasons are accustomed to courting controversy, not surprisingly. In the 1970s, a Home Affairs Select Committee cleared the Freemasons of being involved in miscarriages of justice by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad. However, they noted:
“We cannot entirely exclude the possibility that it (Freemasonry) may have been a contrbuting factor.”
In 2016, the independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigated whether Freemasonry played a part in the Hillsborough disaster and cover up. Former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, Worshipful Master at his local lodge, was responsible for policing at the tragic football match. The inquest questioned why he was promoted to a position for which he was under-qualified. Of course, he denied that his freemason membership had any relevance to his promotion, despite the fact that his predecessor, Brian Mole, was also a Freemason. The implication here is clear: That freemasonry links can play a part in progression of one’s career.
What’s the problem, they will ask you, but don’t be fooled. No one joins the masons for the handshakes. It must be for the benefits it can bring.
Dawn Mason
There have been repeated calls for police officers to declare whether they are Freemasons. However, all attempts at getting mason police officers to admit to their freemason membership, have been thwarted. A voluntary register of police officers was attempted in 1999, and had come in the wake of conclusions drawn by the Home Affairs Select Committee:
There was a “widespread perception” that Freemasonry could have an unhealthy influence on the courts.
Only 36% of police officers responded, compared with 96 per cent of judges and 87 per cent of magistrates. Of the 36.6% of police officers who did cooperate, only 1.1% admitted to being involved with Freemasonry. The Home Officer estimated the figure to be ten times higher. Any attempt at declaring membership of freemasonry compulsory for police officers had to be dropped due to legal action. In a Guardian interview in 2018, former leader of the Police Federation, Steve White, claimed that Freemasons had an unhealthy influence within the police:
“There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.“
Inevitably, Freemasons took exception to this. From the shadows, out stepped David Staples, Chief Executive of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE):
“There is absolutely no reason why police officers, or anyone from any other walk of life, should not be a Freemason and we highlight our shared organisational values of integrity and service to the community.“
“Integrity” and “service to the community” are a strange choice of words which are not usually associated with a secret society. As far back as the 1970s, evidence that a number of police officers and criminals were members of the same lodges came to light. In 1982, the Scotland Yard chief commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, in trying to clean up the image of the Metropolitan Police published a document entitled The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour. He wrote:
“The discerning officer will probably consider it wise to forego the prospect of pleasure and social advantage in Freemasonry as as to enjoy the unreserved regard of all those around him.“