Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,822 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 265,870
Pageviews Today: 351,150Threads Today: 92Posts Today: 1,880
02:37 AM

Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

the best way of a paedophile to avoid prison is to become a freemason

law cant touch you...proof!
User ID: 27497610
United Kingdom
11/11/2012 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
the best way of a paedophile to avoid prison is to become a freemason
THE NORTH Wales Child Abuse Tri­bunal cleared freema­sonry of any involve­ment in cov­er­ing up child abuse.

But why did some fas­ci­nat­ing infor­ma­tion about the broth­er­hood never come to light?

Why did the Tribunal’s own lead­ing coun­sel not declare that he was a mason?

And why was there no men­tion of a police lodge dur­ing the pub­lic hear­ings?

REBECCA inves­ti­gates how freema­sonry came out of the inquiry smelling of
roses …


The three mem­bers of the North Wales Child Abuse Tri­bunal were asked to con­sider set­ting up a reg­is­ter of freema­sons involved in the hear­ings. They refused.

THE WATER­HOUSE Tri­bunal set the tone for its approach to freema­sonry right from day one.

In the very first ses­sion the bar­ris­ter for one of the groups of for­mer res­i­dents of care homes made an appli­ca­tion about masonry.

The bar­ris­ter, Nick Booth, asked that “the Tri­bunal should keep a reg­is­ter of the masonic mem­ber­ship amongst its staff, the mem­bers, its rep­re­sen­ta­tives and wit­nesses who appear before it”.

He explained: “The duty of loy­alty to a brother mason and his duty of impar­tial­ity if he is involved in the admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice is not a new one and it’s one that’s very much in the pub­lic eye, par­tic­u­larly at the moment.”

“The Tri­bunal will be aware of the House of Com­mons Home Affairs Select Com­mit­tee which is inves­ti­gat­ing the issue,” he added.

“Sir, I stress, if I have not stressed it before, that I am not mak­ing any sug­ges­tion of dis­rep­utable con­duct, merely to put the mat­ter beyond the reach of any pos­si­ble pub­lic com­ment which might under­mine the pub­lic con­fi­dence in the Inquiry.”

Sir Ronald Water­house, the retired High Court judge who chaired the Tri­bunal, felt that the appli­ca­tion was a slur on the integrity of the Tribunal’s staff.

The chair­man of the Tri­bunal, Sir Ronald Water­house, and the two other mem­bers of the Tri­bunal, retired for a brief adjourn­ment.

“It will not sur­prise you that the appli­ca­tion is refused,” said Sir Ronald on their return.

“As far as the staff are con­cerned,” Sir Ronald said, “in so far as the appli­ca­tion car­ries any reflec­tion upon the integrity of the staff of the Tri­bunal it’s repu­di­ated, wholly unwar­ranted; there is no evi­dence what­so­ever to sup­port any sug­ges­tion that they have not acted with com­plete integrity…”

“The mem­bers of the Tri­bunal are in this posi­tion: the Tri­bunal was set up by Par­lia­ment and the mem­bers of it were appointed by the Sec­re­tary of State for Wales and the [crit­i­cism of the com­po­si­tion] should be addressed through the proper chan­nels.”

Ger­ard Elias QC. The lead­ing coun­sel to the Tri­bunal kept silent through­out the dis­cus­sion about a reg­is­ter of freema­sons. He him­self is a freema­son …

He said that the Tribunal’s own Coun­sel, Ger­ard Elias QC, was appointed by the Attor­ney Gen­eral.

“Any crit­i­cism … should be addressed through the usual Par­lia­men­tary chan­nels,” he sug­gested.

Ger­ard Elias said noth­ing dur­ing Booth’s appli­ca­tion and he remained silent after Sir Ronald had made the Tribunal’s rul­ing.

Yet both Sir Ronald and Ger­ard Elias knew some­thing that jour­nal­ists report­ing the Tri­bunal would have wanted to know.

Ger­ard Elias is a mason. He’s a mem­ber of per­haps the most pow­er­ful masonic lodge in Wales, Dinas Llandaf. The lodge, which meets in Cardiff, is made up mainly of legal pro­fes­sion­als and mem­bers of the Con­ser­v­a­tive party, although there are mem­bers from other polit­i­cal groups.

See the arti­cle
Broth­ers in Silk
for an exam­i­na­tion of the influ­ence of this lodge and the story of the bar­ris­ter who claims that his refusal to join the lodge was the rea­son why he was never made a QC.

Another mem­ber of the lodge, Gwilym Jones, was the Tory MP for Cardiff North between 1983 and 1997. He was min­is­ter of state at the Welsh Office when the Tri­bunal was set up.

REBECCA has a source who was close to the heart of the Tri­bunal. This source says Sir Ronald was aware of Elias’ masonic mem­ber­ship. Yet he too kept silent about the fact that the Tribunal’s own Coun­sel was a mason.

What hap­pened at the Tri­bunal was in con­trast to pro­ceed­ings at the begin­ning of Gor­don Anglesea’s libel case in Lon­don less than three years ear­lier.

Gor­don Angle­sea was a retired North Wales Police super­in­ten­dent who was accused by jour­nal­ists of abus­ing young boys at a children’s home in North Wales. He won a libel action and accepted £375,000 in dam­ages.

The judge was Sir Mau­rice Drake. He told the court that he was a mem­ber of an organ­i­sa­tion to which Gor­don Angle­sea also belonged. He did not men­tion freema­sonry but all of the legal teams on both sides knew which organ­i­sa­tion he was refer­ring to.

Sir Mau­rice Drake was the judge in the Angle­sea libel action. He’s a promi­nent freema­son but made sure every­one involved in the trial knew he and Angle­sea were masons.
Photo: © Pho­to­shot

There were no objec­tions and no one ever ques­tioned the way he han­dled the case.

Dinas Llandaf is one of the 174 lodges in the South Wales Province. South Wales is one of the more open of the 47 provinces in Eng­land and Wales.

Every year it gives copies of its annual year­book to libraries and to any jour­nal­ist who asks for one. The year­books list the offi­cers of each lodge and the cur­rent issue – 2009 – 2010– gives con­sid­er­able detail about Dinas Llandaf.

A year­book of the North Wales Province. The province does not like to see its year­books widely dis­trib­uted.

For exam­ple, it shows all the offi­cers of the lodge and those mem­bers who have reached the high­est posi­tion – mas­ter of the lodge. Ger­ard Elias is shown as hav­ing been mas­ter in 1994.

How­ever, the North Wales Province is a com­pletely closed book. It refuses to give out copies of its year­book and these come into the pub­lic domain only occa­sion­ally.

For the direc­tory of freema­sons in Apron Strings, for exam­ple, REBECCA had to make do with one for 1995 – 96.

In 1995 a copy of the same year­book came into the hands of Mark Brit­tain who was, at the time, Edi­tor of the North Wales Weekly News. He quickly spot­ted a lodge called Cus­todes Pacis which was formed in 1983.

Mark Brit­tain. He was the Edi­tor of the North Wales Weekly News when he dis­cov­ered the exis­tence of the police lodge Cus­todes Pacis.

He was told many mem­bers of Cus­todes Pacis – it’s Latin for Keep­ers of the Peace – were serv­ing or retired police offi­cers. Police lodges are not uncom­mon with the best known being London’s Manor of St James which at one point con­tained many senior offi­cers of the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police.

In 1995 Brit­tain wrote to the recently appointed Chief Con­sta­ble of North Wales, Michael Argent, and asked him for an inter­view. He asked if the new chief was aware of the lodge. Argent wrote back to agree to an inter­view but told the jour­nal­ist he could find no evi­dence of a police lodge.

When Brit­tain met Argent he told him he had evi­dence of the lodge’s exis­tence and, after the meet­ing, sent him the lodge entry from the 1995 – 96 year­book.

Michael Argent. The newly-appointed chief con­sta­ble of North Wales Police claimed that there was no police lodge on his patch.
Photo: © Daily Post

Argent wrote back in April. He now admit­ted that the lodge list “did indeed con­tain names known to me and my col­leagues although in each case they were retired from the force – in some instances for quite a con­sid­er­able period.”

Brit­tain wrote back to ask if he was sure that there were no serv­ing offi­cers. In May 1995 Argent replied and said that fur­ther enquiries had been under­taken.

“Mark Brit­tain seemed to know more about masonic influ­ence in North Wales Police than the chief con­sta­ble did.”

“I am reli­ably informed that whilst, as I have sug­gested to you in my ear­lier let­ter, it con­sists mainly of retired police offi­cers – cer­tainly up to super­in­ten­dent level – there are only four cur­rently serv­ing offi­cers. Three are iden­ti­fied as con­sta­bles and the fourth is either a con­sta­ble or at most a sergeant.”

Brit­tain says Michael Argent’s story changed three times dur­ing this cor­re­spon­dence.

The man who was chief con­sta­ble when Cus­todes Pacis was set up in 1983 was David Owen. When he gave evi­dence to the Tri­bunal, he did not men­tion the exis­tence of the lodge…

David Owen was chief con­sta­ble when Cus­todes Pacis was set up in 1983. He didn’t want to talk about the issue.
Photo: © Pho­to­shot

We wrote to David Owen to ask him why he didn’t tell the Tri­bunal about the lodge. He rang back to say he didn’t want to answer ques­tions.

In Sep­tem­ber 1997, dur­ing the North Wales Child Abuse Tri­bunal hear­ings, Brit­tain wrote to the North Wales police author­ity, which is respon­si­ble for the non-policing aspects of the force.

The then clerk to the author­ity, Leon Gib­son, wrote back to say that the infor­ma­tion about the mem­ber­ship of Cus­todes Pacis had come from an unnamed lodge mem­ber.

Gib­son added that if the Chief Con­sta­ble “remem­bers cor­rectly, there were five, one sergeant and four con­sta­bles.”

Andrew Moran, the bar­ris­ter who spoke for the North Wales Police. He claimed that the force was a mason-free zone…

The bar­ris­ter who rep­re­sented North Wales Police at the Tri­bunal was Andrew Moran, QC. In his open­ing address, he made it clear that the force felt that masonry was an irrel­e­vance.

He listed many of the senior police­men who had played a role in the child abuse inves­ti­ga­tions and said, “I am instructed to add, irrel­e­vant though it should be, that none … is a Freema­son.”

He added: “Where then, please, we ask is the masonic influ­ence? Freemason at the top of the North Wales Police? There are none … Mason-free zone, we would say.”

In this open­ing address, he did an unusual thing. He said none of these peo­ple “is” a freema­son and did not add the usual rider “or has been” when deal­ing with masonic mem­ber­ship.

He there­fore left open the ques­tion of whether any of these senior offi­cers had ever been masons.

Sir Ronald Water­house: the dif­fer­ence between “is” and “had been”…

The Report of the Tri­bunal reported this state­ment with slightly dif­fer­ent word­ing; “at the out­set of the Inquiry Coun­sel for the North Wales Police stated, on the instruc­tions of the Chief Con­sta­ble, that none of the cur­rent or for­mer senior offi­cers from Assis­tant Chief Con­sta­ble upwards dur­ing the period under review had been a freema­son and that the same was true of the rel­e­vant Detec­tive Chief Super­in­ten­dents and Detec­tive Super­in­ten­dent Ack­er­ley.”

Ack­er­ley was the Super­in­ten­dent who headed the major police inquiry into child abuse between 1991 and 1993.

REBECCA wrote to Sir Ronald Water­house about how the word “is” had changed into “had been.” He never replied.

Dur­ing the pub­lic hear­ings of the Tri­bunal freema­sonry was lit­tle dis­cussed, as its report makes clear: “Although this ques­tion was quite widely dis­cussed in the press before the Tribunal’s hear­ings began very few ques­tions were asked about it dur­ing our inquiry and most of them were put by the Chair­man of the Tri­bunal to give appro­pri­ate wit­nesses an oppor­tu­nity to affirm or deny any con­nec­tion with freema­sonry.”

REBECCA sent a list of all the male bar­ris­ters who appeared before the Tri­bunal to the United Grand Lodge of Eng­land and asked how many of them were freema­sons.

How many of the bar­ris­ters who took part in the Tri­bunal were or had been masons? REBECCA asked masonic HQ in Lon­don but a spokesman said he was unable to answer the ques­tion.

REBECCA also asked if the police asses­sor to the Tri­bunal, Sir Ronald Had­field, and the retired police offi­cers who made up the Tribunal’s wit­ness inter­view­ing team were masons.

A spokesman replied: “I’m afraid I am unable to give you the infor­ma­tion you require. We would only do so if you were an offi­cial body mak­ing that request.”

When the Tri­bunal reported in 2000, its ver­dict was clear: “Freema­sonry had no impact on any of the police inves­ti­ga­tions and was not rel­e­vant to any other issue aris­ing from our terms of ref­er­ence.”

The most impor­tant known mason who appeared before the Tri­bunal was the retired Super­in­ten­dent Gor­don Angle­sea who won a libel action against jour­nal­ists who wrongly accused him of abus­ing chil­dren.

“Angle­sea was ques­tioned also about his con­nec­tion with Freema­sonry,” said the Tri­bunal Report, “because of an under­ly­ing sug­ges­tion that there had been a ‘cover-up’ in his case. He dis­closed that he had become a full mem­ber of Berwyn Lodge in Wrex­ham, in 1982, after being a pro­ba­tioner in a lodge at Col­wyn Bay from about 1976.”

“He had then trans­ferred to a new Wrex­ham lodge, Pega­sus lodge, in 1984 after a gap from April to Sep­tem­ber, because it offered an oppor­tu­nity for swifter advance in freema­sonry.”

The Tri­bunal Report then says he remained a mem­ber of the Pega­sus Lodge despite a direc­tive from the Chief Con­sta­ble of the North Wales Police, David Owen, in Sep­tem­ber 1984.

“We must be seen to be even-handed in the dis­charge of our office and my pol­icy will be to say that if you have con­sid­ered join­ing the Masons, think care­fully about how that appli­ca­tion might inter­fere with your pri­mary duty.”
Chief Con­sta­ble David Owen

This direc­tive stated: “We must be seen to be even-handed in the dis­charge of our office and my pol­icy will be to say that if you have con­sid­ered join­ing the Masons, think care­fully about how that appli­ca­tion might inter­fere with your pri­mary duty.”

“To those who are Masons I would say that you should con­sider care­fully how right it is to con­tinue such mem­ber­ship. In the open soci­ety in which we live that open­ness must be seen by all and must not be an open­ness par­tially [clouded] by a secrecy where peo­ple could ques­tion true moti­va­tion.”

Dur­ing cross-examination of Angle­sea at the Tri­bunal, Tim King QC, rep­re­sent­ing for­mer res­i­dents of children’s homes, asked him if Owen’s direc­tive had upset or con­cerned him.

“Not what­so­ever, sir,” replied Angle­sea, “I read that order two or three times and it did not – I felt it did not affect my par­tic­u­lar posi­tion.”

In the 1980s freema­sonry came under fire from jour­nal­ists. REBECCA was one of the first with an inves­ti­ga­tion in 1981.

1984 was a water­shed year for pub­lic scrutiny of masonry. That year saw the pub­li­ca­tion of Stephen Knight’s The Broth­er­hood which fol­lowed other press inves­ti­ga­tions such the 1981 REBECCA arti­cle Dark­ness Vis­i­ble.

The same year Met­ro­pol­i­tan Com­mis­sioner Sir Ken­neth New­man and Albert Laugh­arne, an assis­tant com­mis­sioner, pub­lished “The Prin­ci­ples of Polic­ing” which made it clear that mem­ber­ship of freema­sonry left offi­cers open to sus­pi­cion.

“Thus an offi­cer must pay the most care­ful regard to the impres­sion which oth­ers are likely to gain of his mem­ber­ship, as well as to what he actu­ally does, how­ever inhibit­ing he may find this when arrang­ing his own pri­vate life.”

David Owen’s response to these devel­op­ments was to call a con­fer­ence of super­in­ten­dents which decided to issue the direc­tive.

Lord Kenyon was the Grand Mas­ter of the North Wales Province of Freema­sonry in the 1980s. He was also a mem­ber of the North Wales Police Author­ity.

Within a month of Owen cir­cu­lat­ing it, the Provin­cial Grand Mas­ter of North Wales, Lord Kenyon, asked to meet with him. The two men knew each other well: Kenyon was also a mem­ber of the police author­ity.

The meet­ing took place at Wrex­ham police sta­tion. Lord Kenyon was accom­pa­nied by the sec­re­tary of the province, Leonard Ellis.

Solic­i­tors act­ing for the masons wrote to the Tri­bunal in an attempt to get this anec­dote removed on the grounds that it was irrel­e­vant to the Tribunal’s work.

The Tri­bunal rejected the attempt and its report described what hap­pened when the Provin­cial Grand Mas­ter came face to face with the Chief Con­sta­ble.

David Owen told the Grand Mas­ter that he had no inten­tion of with­draw­ing his direc­tive about freema­sonry…

“At this meet­ing Lord Kenyon argued that the direc­tive was totally mis­guided and asked that it should be with­drawn and he men­tioned that a police offi­cer (uniden­ti­fied but not Angle­sea) had been about to take the chair in a North Wales lodge but had declined to do so because of this direc­tive.”

“Owen’s evi­dence was that he told Lord Kenyon that he had no inten­tion of with­draw­ing the direc­tive. In response, Lord Kenyon argued that the Chief Con­sta­ble knew noth­ing at all about freema­sonry and sug­gested it would be appro­pri­ate for him to join a lodge, such as the one at Den­bigh, out­side any area of his usual work­ing activ­ity, but this invi­ta­tion was declined.”

Freema­son Sir Wal­ter Stans­field was a for­mer deputy chief con­sta­ble of North Wales before he became the chief con­sta­ble of Der­byshire.
Photo: © Pho­to­shot

David Owen wasn’t the first chief con­sta­ble Lord Kenyon had dealt with. Four years ear­lier the grand mas­ter wel­comed Sir Wal­ter Stans­field back to North Wales after he retired as Derbyshire’s chief con­sta­ble and brought his police career to a close.

Sir Wal­ter had been chief con­sta­ble of the Den­bigh force before the reor­gan­i­sa­tion which led to the cre­ation of the North Wales Police. He was deputy chief con­sta­ble of North Wales in 1967 when he was appointed Derbyshire’s chief con­sta­ble.

When he left North Wales to take up the Der­byshire post, he didn’t sever his links with North Wales. He joined a new masonic lodge, Dyfrdwy, which met at Ruabon, becom­ing its mas­ter a year later, in 1968.

In 1981 REBECCA asked Sir Wal­ter Stans­field why he had cho­sen to join a North Wales lodge after he left North Wales Police. Had he been a mem­ber of a lodge in another part of the coun­try?

Sir Wal­ter didn’t take kindly to being ques­tioned on the sub­ject. He said: “Who do you think you’re talk­ing to?” He then denied being Sir Wal­ter Stans­field even though the tele­phone num­ber he was speak­ing on was listed in his name.

Sir Wal­ter didn’t take kindly to being ques­tioned on the sub­ject. He said:
“Who do you think you’re talk­ing to?”

Sir Wal­ter also makes a cameo appear­ance in Mar­tin Short’s book about freema­sonry, Inside The Broth­er­hood. After Sir Wal­ter left Der­byshire, the Eng­lish force was rocked by the Alf Par­rish scan­dal.

Par­rish was appointed chief con­sta­ble in 1981 but soon squan­dered police funds for his own com­fort. He was dri­ven out of office by which time it was dis­cov­ered that he was a mason as were many of the police author­ity mem­bers who appointed him.

The key masons belonged to the old­est lodge in Der­byshire, Tryian. A provin­cial year­book obtained by Labour coun­cil­lors in the mid-1980s revealed that another mem­ber of the lodge was Sir Wal­ter Stans­field…

Lord Kenyon told a Grand Lodge meet­ing that masons have noth­ing to hide “but we object to hav­ing our affairs inves­ti­gated by out­siders.”

Back in 1981, North Wales Provin­cial Grand Mas­ter Lord Kenyon responded to increas­ing media atten­tion, includ­ing REBECCA cov­er­age, by mak­ing a state­ment to masons in the province.

“… we have noth­ing to hide and cer­tainly noth­ing to be ashamed of, but we object to hav­ing our affairs inves­ti­gated by out­siders.”

“We would be able to answer many of the ques­tions likely to be asked, if not all of them, but we have found that silence is the best pol­icy: com­ment or cor­rec­tion only breeds fur­ther inquiry and leads to the pub­lic­ity we try to avoid.”

Sir Ronald Water­house said there was no evi­dence that Lord Kenyon had done any­thing to help Gor­don Angle­sea.

The child abuse Tribunal’s report also dis­missed any sug­ges­tion that Lord Kenyon had tried to pro­mote the career of Gor­don Angle­sea.

The Report con­cluded that “there is no evi­dence that Lord Kenyon inter­vened at any time in any way on behalf of Angle­sea.”

The Tri­bunal did con­sider a com­ment made by Coun­cil­lor Mal­colm King, who was also a for­mer chair­man of the North Wales Police Author­ity, that “there was spec­u­la­tion (he believed) that Lord Kenyon had asked for pro­mo­tion for Gor­don Angle­sea.”

“This was said by Coun­cil­lor King to have been based on a con­ver­sa­tion over­heard at a police func­tion; and that the spec­u­la­tion was that Lord Kenyon had advo­cated Anglesea’s pro­mo­tion ‘for the pur­pose of cov­er­ing up the fact that his son had been involved in child abuse activ­i­ties’.”

Coun­cil­lor Mal­colm King: he was the source of the rumour that Lord Kenyon had expressed sur­prise that Gor­don Angle­sea had not been pro­moted…

This was alleged to have related to an inci­dent in August 1979 when Lord Kenyon’s son, Tom, reported the theft of arti­cles by a for­mer Bryn Estyn res­i­dent while the two men were stay­ing at a flat in Wrex­ham. The young man he accused of theft was arrested and later given three months deten­tion.

How­ever, dur­ing the course of the inves­ti­ga­tion police dis­cov­ered a series of inde­cent pho­tographs in the flat which was owned by a man called Gary Cooke.

Cooke was later gaoled for five years on two counts of bug­gery, one of inde­cent assault and one of tak­ing an inde­cent pho­to­graph.

Cooke claimed that, after he was arrested and charged, Tom Kenyon came over and apol­o­gised to him for what had hap­pened and handed him a let­ter.

He added that if Cooke agreed “not to say any­thing” he would have a word with his father to improve Cooke’s chances in court.

Lost in Care, the report of the Tri­bunal pub­lished in 2000, was damn­ing about this story: “We have received no evi­dence what­so­ever in sup­port of this alle­ga­tion and it appears to have been merely a mali­cious rumour.”

Cooke says he gave this let­ter to the police. The offi­cers who dealt with the case say they received no such let­ter.

Cooke believed that Tom Kenyon’s inter­ven­tion short­ened his sen­tence.

How­ever, when Super­in­ten­dent Ack­er­ley was car­ry­ing out his inves­ti­ga­tion into this case, he dis­cov­ered that the pros­e­cu­tion file could not be found.

The Tribunal’s inves­ti­ga­tors dis­cov­ered that there was no evi­dence Cooke had been shown any favour: he served a full third of his sen­tence. In any case, the Report added, Lord Kenyon had no influ­ence with the parole board.

The Tribunal’s Report con­clu­sion was damn­ing: “We have received no evi­dence what­so­ever in sup­port of this alle­ga­tion and it appears to have been merely a mali­cious rumour.”

Coun­cil­lor King was actu­ally com­bin­ing two sep­a­rate rumours here: the first that Lord Kenyon had spo­ken up for Angle­sea at a police func­tion, the sec­ond that it was some­how related to favours Angle­sea was alleged to have done for his son.

It was at a func­tion at police head­quar­ters in Col­wyn Bay that a Police Fed­er­a­tion rep heard Lord Kenyon talk­ing about Gor­don Angle­sea…
Photo: Barry Davies

The Tri­bunal should have known that the first rumour, that Lord Kenyon had spo­ken up for Angle­sea, had rather more sub­stance. The source of the anec­dote was Harry Tem­ple­ton, a for­mer con­sta­ble and once the sec­re­tary of the Police Fed­er­a­tion branch in North Wales Police.

The rea­son the Tri­bunal should have known about it was that two mem­bers of its own Wit­ness Inter­view­ing Team, made up of retired police offi­cers who were not from North Wales, went to talk to Tem­ple­ton.

Tem­ple­ton told them he had been to a func­tion at the senior offi­cers’ din­ing room at Police Head­quar­ters in Col­wyn Bay and was sit­ting oppo­site Lord Kenyon who was present as a mag­is­trate mem­ber of the Police Author­ity.

Tem­ple­ton told the Tri­bunal team that Lord Kenyon had said that he was sur­prised Gor­don Angle­sea, then a chief inspec­tor, had not been pro­moted to Super­in­ten­dent and that he would see to it that he was pro­moted before he retired.

There is a mys­tery about why Templeton’s evi­dence was never heard by the Tri­bunal. Its own wit­ness inter­view­ing team actu­ally went to see the retired police­man …

Tem­ple­ton told them he’d made a signed affi­davit about the inci­dent for a national news­pa­per. Tem­ple­ton also told the Tri­bunal team there was another wit­ness to the remark, Peter Williams, the then chair­man of the Police Fed­er­a­tion branch.

Tem­ple­ton never said any­thing about Lord Kenyon’s advo­cat­ing a pro­mo­tion for Gor­don Angle­sea hav­ing any­thing to do with Tom Kenyon’s case. This sug­ges­tion, he says, must have come from some­where else.

When REBECCA sent Tem­ple­ton details of the Tribunal’s find­ings in rela­tion to this anec­dote, he was shocked. He says that the two retired Tri­bunal detec­tives had not taken a signed state­ment from him and he now feels there is a ques­tion mark about what they did with the infor­ma­tion he gave them.

REBECCA also spoke to Peter Williams who said that the Tri­bunal never came to see him. He con­firmed that he was at the func­tion with Harry Tem­ple­ton in their offi­cial roles as Police Fed­er­a­tion rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

He recalls that Lord Kenyon expressed his sur­prise that Gor­don Angle­sea had not been pro­moted. He does not remem­ber him say­ing that he would see that it took place before he retired. •R•

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –


WHEN IT comes to the Tri­bunal, North Wales Police and the freema­sons it’s dif­fi­cult not to use the phrase Sir Ronald Water­house coined about the evi­dence given to the Inquiry by the freema­son and retired police super­in­ten­dent Gor­don Angle­sea.

“Con­sid­er­able dis­quiet,” was his ver­dict.

This is also an appro­pri­ate ver­dict for the way freema­sonry was han­dled by the Tri­bunal.

It is dif­fi­cult to believe the Attor­ney Gen­eral know­ingly appointed the mason Ger­ard Elias QC to be the Tribunal’s lead­ing coun­sel when one of his tasks was to inves­ti­gate the role of masonry.

Ger­ard Elias QC: ill-advised.

For Elias not to declare that he was a mason was ill-advised.

For Sir Ronald Water­house, who knew about Elias’ masonic mem­ber­ship, not to have revealed it was ill-judged.

It means that, what­ever the real­ity of what the Tri­bunal actu­ally did, it leaves the door open for some to form the impres­sion that it had some­thing to hide.

It fell foul of the very taint that the bar­ris­ter Nick Booth warned about when he urged the Tri­bunal to intro­duce a reg­is­ter of masons in the ranks of the Tri­bunal and its staff.

Sir Ronald Water­house: ill-judged.

There is no doubt that Ger­ard Elias can­not be crit­i­cised for the way he han­dled freema­sonry dur­ing the Tribunal’s hear­ings.

The prob­lem is that there is also no way of know­ing what a non-mason would have done in his posi­tion.

Edi­tions of the North Wales provin­clal year­books were avail­able to non-masonic cir­cles at the time the Tri­bunal was sit­ting.

For exam­ple, a scep­ti­cal non-mason might have made it his or her busi­ness to obtain a copy of the year­book of the North Wales province.

This would have revealed, for exam­ple, that Lord Kenyon had his own lodge, called Kenyon, which used to meet at his home in Gred­ing­ton.

Since all lodges keep atten­dance reg­is­ters, the scep­ti­cal bar­ris­ter could have asked to see them.

The year­book would also have led to the dis­cov­ery of the exis­tence of the police lodge Cus­todes Pacis.

This bar­ris­ter might also have read Stephen Knight’s The Broth­er­hood or Mar­tin Short’s more pen­e­trat­ing follow-up Inside the Broth­er­hood.

He or she could have exam­ined the REBECCA arti­cles of the 1970s and 1980s, one of which con­tained the story of Sir Wal­ter Stans­field.

Andrew Moran: a judi­cious use of lan­guage?

The infor­ma­tion in these works would have pre­pared the bar­ris­ter for the pos­si­ble flaw in police QC Andrew Moran’s insis­tence that masonry played no part in the senior reaches of the force.

Moran used the word “is” when expe­ri­enced masonic watch­ers use the phrase “is or has been”.

David Owen: was his anti-freemason direc­tive a smoke­screen?
Photo: © Pho­to­shot

This is not an aca­d­e­mic point. Many pow­er­ful men use masonry to advance their careers in their early years – using masonic influ­ence to boost their pro­file above their rivals – and then take a back seat when they are estab­lished.

Some, like Sir Wal­ter Stans­field, move to lodges out­side the area of the force they work for. Oth­ers sim­ply stop pay­ing their dues and then rejoin masonry on their retire­ment.

Work­ing out what’s really going on at the top of most of the police forces in Eng­land and Wales is dif­fi­cult enough at the best of times. Throw in masonry and you’re deal­ing with smoke and mir­rors.

When the chief con­sta­ble David Owen issued his 1984 direc­tive, was every­thing as it seemed? That is, he agreed with the argu­ments advanced by Sir Ken­neth New­man and Albert Laugh­arne of Scot­land Yard that freema­sonry was incom­pat­i­ble with mod­ern polic­ing?

Sir Ronald Water­house: the Tri­bunal he presided over has left many ques­tions unan­swered …

Or was he react­ing to the cre­ation of Cus­todes Pacis, furi­ous that masonry had cre­ated a police lodge on his patch and deter­mined to pun­ish the broth­er­hood?

Or was it all a smoke­screen? After all, when Gor­don Angle­sea con­tin­ued with his masonic mem­ber­ship, the chief con­sta­ble David Owen still pro­moted him from chief inspec­tor to super­in­ten­dent.

The man­ner in which the Tri­bunal dealt with the anec­dote about Provin­cial Grand Mas­ter Lord Kenyon say­ing that he was dis­ap­pointed that Gor­don Angle­sea hadn’t been pro­moted, was dis­grace­ful.

Retired detec­tives from South Wales and other forces went to see the source of the anec­dote, Harry Tem­ple­ton.

Templeton’s ver­sion of events does not even appear in the Tribunal’s report.

Why not?

Who was respon­si­ble?

Were any of the eight retired police offi­cers, who made up the Tribunal’s wit­ness inter­view­ing team, masons?

There may be sim­ple answers to all these ques­tions. The point is that, as things cur­rently stand, the answers to these ques­tions will never see the light of day.

In the final analy­sis, the Tri­bunal can­not demon­strate that it itself was “a mason-free zone” let alone give any reas­sur­ance that the upper reaches of the North Wales Police were mason-free. •R•
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27429956
11/11/2012 03:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: the best way of a paedophile to avoid prison is to become a freemason
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27302989
United States
11/11/2012 04:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: the best way of a paedophile to avoid prison is to become a freemason
bumpity bump bump bump

wana be masters of gang stalking too and the worst hecklers ive ever seen
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27227418
11/11/2012 04:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: the best way of a paedophile to avoid prison is to become a freemason
[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Newsnight failed to say that Messham triggered a 1994 libel trial by falsely claiming to have been abused by a senior police officer. His story was shown to be riddled with contradictions, costing the publications which reported his claims a total of £375,000 in damages and £1 million costs
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27224901
United Kingdom
11/11/2012 04:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: the best way of a paedophile to avoid prison is to become a freemason
[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Newsnight failed to say that Messham triggered a 1994 libel trial by falsely claiming to have been abused by a senior police officer. His story was shown to be riddled with contradictions, costing the publications which reported his claims a total of £375,000 in damages and £1 million costs
 Quoting: BuggedOut

Yeah, imagine that, a Judge ruling in favor of a Pedophile, would never happen now, woul;d it?