Anger at 'cloak of secrecy' for Freemason judges
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Jack Straw's decision to no longer force applicants for the judiciary to declare if they are Freemasons was today branded a "disgrace" by a Labour MP.
Gordon Prentice (Pendle) said there would again be a "cloak of secrecy" following the move by the Justice Secretary.
Mr Straw said last week that a review had shown no evidence of "impropriety or malpractice" as a result of a judge being a Freemason and it would be "disproportionate" to continue with the practice, introduced in 1998.
The United Grand Lodge of England made representations to ministers in May and indicated it might seek judicial review of the policy.
At Commons question time today Mr Prentice asked: "Is it not a disgrace that you have decided to allow judges no longer to have to declare if they are Freemasons?
"We know that one in 20 of our judges are Freemasons. Why on earth the cloak of secrecy?"
Mr Straw replied: "There was no secrecy about my announcement, I made the announcement by way of written ministerial statement last week in the light of a European Court of Human Rights judgment against the state of Italy, which was made in 2006, and to which our attention was drawn by the Grand Lodge of Freemasons.
"It suggested that a continuation of a compulsory register...was likely to be unlawful. After legal advice I accepted that. It is open to any judge to declare that they are Freemasons."
He added that there had been "no evidence" of any "unacceptable behaviour by Freemason judges.
Ministry of Justice figures indicate there are 3,808 judges in England and Wales and 205 or 5.4 per cent are Freemasons. There are also 29,702 magistrates, of whom 1,900 or 6.4 per cent are Freemasons.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I wonder if the legal advice on the continuation of the compulsory register came from serving Freemasons.
Why do people join if it is just for a social gathering and brings no real privaleges? There are plenty of other ways to meet people.
The reality is they do join to gain advantage in life. That is not really helping to create a fair and open society is it?
Posted by thentherewere4
The types who regularly attend booze-ups at their local lodge have little idea what they are involved in.
the Zionist Jack Straw will understand these things all too well. he is a traitor and a fiend and, like the masons he wishes to protect, should be thoroughly exposed himself.
I am a member of a secret society, I am delighted to hear this news that I don't have to declare my, well, you know... business things.
I would like to apply for the position advertised as "Judge". We can all get along and trust me there will be something in it for you. It is easy to control all these idiots who watch X factor all day. Perhaps another war on something could help put me in good favour.
Yours Sincerely,
O.B. Laden
I was fascinated, not totally convinced, but remained sceptical, whilst the overall conclusion stuck with me. That was "if you're in a situation where everything points in pne direction [evidence, argument, precedent etc] and yet the outcome is the exact opposite of what was anticipated, to your disadvantage." I've paraphrased but tried to get the gist of it.
The, some 15 years on I was in exactly such a situation. Senior people had interviewed me and my colleagues at length on a dispute - all were totally convincing that I had been "set up" by an outside sponsor. (It was not a court case, more a situation of contractual interpretation.)
The resolution was arranged, and the various parties met. The "senior people" whi had been so supportive, along with a second sponsor, opened the proceedings with the bald statement that unless I could work with sponsor number 1 and give my full support, including divulging ALL material, even that beyond the agreed amount on the contract, then the contract would be terminated to the advantage of contractor number 1.
I gave in with great misgivings and suspicion, kept to myself. Some three to four years later it emerged the the lead "important person" was indeed a mason and so was sponsor number 1.
I need no further proof.
Mason should fully and openly declare.
No, I'm not a mason.
We the british people do not want corruption in our society.
Judges, magistrates, and the police should definitely not be allowed
to be freemasons, because they are very likely to engage in corruption.
You need no explanation for the reasons for that as no doubt you fully understand the logic.
Your decision to end the requirement for judges to declare their freemasonry membership is wrong.
The article in the Independent is well informed on this matter and should make you realise
that the public are well aware of the corrupt practices of the masons.
Regards...........John, Shropshire