Just a little annoyed by these accusations about me. I'm not a fanatical anti-Mason (though such is the level of paranoia and defensiveness that anyone who raises questions about the Masons is described as such).
I'm indulging in "I spoke to a mate" because this is a little relaxing internet debate. If I was a general journo compiling a story, I'd be trawling through all the resources and references. If I were to post some specifics you'd probably dismiss it all as propaganda by fanatical anti-Masons anyway, and would smear whoever had come up with it. Chris Mullin? "Remember his dealings with the pub-bombings!"
If one were to direct the interested to the Lord Chancellor's views on the need for Judges and magistrates to declare their membership, and on the potential conflict of interests, doubtless we'd get a blizzard of postings about his penchant for £200 per roll wall-paper.
I liked the selective reporting of what one member of the select committee (how do we know she had no Masonic connections, BTW?) said. But the Committee's conclusion was that:
" the select committee said: "We believe that nothing so much undermines public confidence in public institutions as the knowledge that some public servants are members of a secret society, one of whose aims is mutual self-advancement." And that's the crux of why Freemasonry is incompatible with service in the armed forces, police or judiciary.