It was once described as:
"The triumph of the mediocrity over the meritocracy."



------------------
Lou Scannon

J/Nicko - I've enjoyed some of your postings in the past and even had a little exchange with you myself some time ago. This time I think you are way over the top.

Did a Mason bite you on the ankles when you were a small child or something? Your deepseated resentment is coming through my computer screen in waves. Each to their own.

Let's have some more of your fast jet stories, at least you know what you're talking about there. Possibly.

I thought everyone knew you write "BOAZ" in pencil on the top right hand corner of your 1369 and its as good as a Spec Rec!

------------------
presto digitate

I hardly know where to begin! If it not for the fact that Jacko is probably scraping the bottom of the barrel for a "Freemasons in Service" Exposee, I would be much more scathing in my reply!

The fact that a bloody journalist can be so high and mighty beggers belief! I will, however, leave the coherent, reasoned arguments to Mr W - thank you.

The fact that Mr W's line of retort was so easily avoided simply adds fuel to the argument that we should not be trying to strifle a benevolent "secret" society - we need to be looking very carefully at the narrow minded biggots who scrawl for the tabloids.

In typically journalistic fashion, Jacko avoids dealing with the real issues in shades of gray and goes for the 'black and white' approach.

These idiots hide behind the anonimity of a newspaper, pushing out all sorts of rubbish in the name of democracy, when all they are trying to do is sell enough papers to justify their salaries.

How many public figures have been ruined over the years by the press? Whether sportsman, pop star or politician - noone is safe from them. Whether they deserved it or not, who made the press Judge, Jury and Executioner?

Freemasons?! You're barking up the wrong tree mate. The freemasons are a convenient and easy target for narrow minded fools when the real news has dried up. Unless the major editors and journalists are all freemasons then the conspiracy is not that deep. (And if they are all freemasons it only goes to show that there are some bad apples in every organization?!)

The press has far more power, and corrupting influence, than the freemasons will ever have. Only, your organization is not the easy target that freemasons are. How many politicians have tried to take the press on and where has it left them?

Self-regulation? What a joke! When has the press showed any real responsibility and self-control? Never, unless there was an alterior motive for it. I don't know what kind of reporter you are Jacko, but it patently doesn't involve any serious research.

Now, if you are going to sling mud then, as the Tories are so fond of saying (in paraphrase), let it have "substance" and not "spin".

Going back to the origianl theme of the thread, the danger for any organisation lies in someone being written up by a fellow Mason when they don't deserve it, and that person subsequently being given prmotion and a job they cannot cope with. This may help explain some of the more bizarre promotions we may have seen.

Have just got back from the local boozer,which is run by a mason. my father was a mason, I'm not.

PW's comments are well argued sensible and well balanced such that there seems to be little to keep the thread alive. Sadly it is irritation at Jackonickos inability to distinguish between genuine investigative journalism concerning military mismanagement and sensationalist non stories that keeps me awake.
Perhaps it will be Masonic Lesbian Wrens in the air slaughtering cattle next.(I trust that is a truly purple scenario)and even a hack like Jackonicko might get some column inches out of that.

Entertaining thread this one, it's even better than listening to the 'hard done by souls' who put their own lack of success down to yet another Masonic conspiracy. I have had the good fortune to have served in the Royal Air Force as a pilot for almost 20 years including those halcyon days of UAS/BFT. I am also a Lewis, for the as yet uninitiated, the son of a freemason entitled to join at a much earlier age than that normally permitted. I grew up with freemasonry having a major influence on my life, learning tolerance, acceptance of others despite any perceived failings and above all respect for a system that does not willingly tolerate misdeeds of its own members. Perhaps society generally would profit from the principled guidance I have received over the years, giving less fortunate people a reason not to destroy the fabric of their own environment both physically and by the fear they plant into the minds of their more vulnerable neighbours. It is more often the fear of failing in the eyes of ones own peer group that encourages certain behaviour, particularly in deprived areas. Parents fail their own children because they do not understand themselves when behaviour has become inappropriate, and society fails itself because there is no structure for those who consider things to be wrong to turn to. If more people took to freemasonry perhaps the accumulated wisdom and genuine friendship one can find in all parts of The World may go some way to preventing the intolerable and entirely avoidable deprivation we witness today.

So what has this got to do with freemasonry and military service? I live quite happily by the codes of service life, sadly they are being eroded by a society that ever increasingly insists that our own attitudes and the way we conduct our affairs is not reflective of the society we purport to represent. We weaken our own leaders by making them fear their own decisions made on the now shaky ground of previous experience. Armchair experts crucify any error made in the field without incuring criticism of their often dubious analysis (Jacko!) and fewer and fewer young adults see value in service life of any form. It is often that I reflect that many of my own opinions and moral stances are not those of my own at all, rather a mixture of all those around me. I am considered by others (seen it in writing) to be a tolerant, fair and balanced individual, not the heroic dashing leader of men I would have liked to have been. I am rather glad of this as that is an underlying principle of the ancient society to which I belong. Freemasonry is not to be feared, those who join our ranks in order to effect pecuniary or 'other' gain are usually seen but a few times and resign with an all too obvious disappointment. There is no selection procedure other than a self imposed one. No one will invite you to join. Only those who seek to understand for themselves will stay. Freemasonry has given me the moral courage to stand by my decisions even if they have been unpopular, as well as the humility to accept when I am wrong. More importantly while everything falls apart around us all, and our leaders jump like frightened rabbits every time an unelected EU minister says boo, I can periodically spend time in a place were sanity prevails and the latest band waggon rolls past the outside of a locked door and we just ignore it.

Frankly the subject is not important enough to me to be @rsed to dig through the morgue and quote specific cases. I don't claim or want to be an expert on Freemasonry. I'm a specialist aviation/defence writer, and that's where I do my research and work. I comment on the Masons in the Forces as an interested onlooker, not as a journo. I'm not remotely interested in covering the subject in print, nor that of lesbian nuns slaughtering cattle (but I'll have a pint of whatever you've been drinking).

Nor do I deny that there are some worthy chaps and notable names who are masons, and nor would I have them all executed (or whatever else I'm supposed to be in favour of). I'm not comparing Masons with child-molesters or Combat 18, I'm arguing from an extreme in order to make the point that Human Rights legislation can't be used to protect any behaviour (and especially not by an organisation which discriminates on the grounds of gender). There are plenty of honourable Masons out there, and I wouldn't want to be that offensive to them.

But I do think that membership of a secret society which has been tainted by the widely held suspicion of mild (and sometimes less mild) corruption is inconsistent with military or police service, and I'd rather see it eradicated from the law, too. I wouldn't want serving officers to be active in political parties, either, though I find that fractionally less worrying.

A quick word with the crime correspondent on one of the broadsheets reassured me that there is plenty of evidence of Masonic corruption, large-scale and small, with instances in recent criminal cases. Please don't make me spend time dredging through it - I'm told that there's plenty on the web, for and against, if you're that desparate to trawl through the "Yes he did"s and "No he didn't"s of the argument.

It's not a charity. It's not a golf club. There may be plenty of genuinely altruistic Masons who just want to give something back, but some other members regard it as a useful covert networking opportunity, and a legitimate means of ensuring self advancement and business success. Why else would you join, instead of joining the Rotary (now that's a charity) or the Golf Club (now that's a golf club)? It's not dangerous in civilian life, but I don't happen to like it.

But in the forces, it's a different ball-game. As has been better expressed by others, it's a secret organisation which could bypass the chain of command and could influence promotion, discipline, etc. After all, Masons do swear oaths of loyalty to their brother Masons, don't they?

Adastral: You don't know who I am. You don't know what I do (though I'm flattered that you think I'm a "narrow minded biggots who scrawl for the tabloids"). At the same time you don't know "what kind of reporter I am, but it patently doesn't involve any serious research". "The press has far more power, and corrupting influence, than the freemasons will ever have". Interesting that the press and publishing industries have plenty of practising Masons..... perhaps if I was one I'd earn myself a little less venom and odium. Or perhaps not.

And who are these poor innocents who've been so destroyed by the press? Neil Hamilton? The Maxwells? Archer? And isn't it atrocious that the press have drawn attention to the Chinook crash, Blair's lies and spin, etc. Don't push me into defending the tabloids - much of what the press does is shabby and shoddy, but much of it is well-meaning, and most journos do what they do in the misguided belief that they might do some good. (Not me mate, I do it for the money and the fame).

Okay. My Grandpa was the grand poo bah or whatever you call it of his lodge for a time. Lovely old fella. But, why so secretive? I've been to social functions at the lodge etc. and i'm sure much good is done. But the whole loyalty/secrecy thing disturbs me. At the end of the day it isn't a rugby club it is a very big, old club with (as far as i can work out) some rather strange and secretive pastimes/rituals. Its the secrecy which i find worrying. The dodgy handshakes, why not just bring it up in conversation? What is the point of determining that someone is a fellow mason discreetly? Argue all you want. I think it is wrong that gentlemen/women such as ourselves should be bound by a "discreet" societys rules. You cannot defend it reasonably. Bin the secrecy and it would be far less suspicious and more palatable to us who never roll our trouser legs up. Unless we go paddling of course.

Hmmm, a bit heavy here chaps, what with Jacko's " publish and be damned approach"and Stan at the opposite end of the spectrum. It does say "In God We Trust" Stan, but the realist will tell you that everyone else pays cash!

Mister P, I confess to playing rugby both as an SAC and Sqn Ldr, though with much regret as the latter, there being some interesting intervening years!No fool like an old fool, but rugby is like that.

PW seems an intense young man; nothing wrong with that, but both you and Jacko seem to puffing out your respective chests in saying, "Put up or shut up." Neither will win so why bother?

DW has a point, and a sustainable one at that. Though I could never prove it, I have seen some questionable write-ups by known Masons.

The winner of course is TBB, whose summary is succinct and humourous, which I like!

On another matter, I have a serious question to ask an experienced C130 Captain,if one would like to e-mail me?



[This message has been edited by Samuel (edited 05 April 2001).]

Whats worst? Me writing this at one in the morning over here, or you lot at six over there? What are you all doing? Am I now under surviellance? PW is going to attack me with clever lawyer speak and goats. I've had it. Bloody hell I've got them after me now. No more comments from me on masons. Weirdos. Never mind the rotating knives, please can I join?
(Ahem....)

TBB

Couldn't attack you with goats, they're all quarantined because of the foot and mouth outbreak.

Jacko, I'm afraid that as each Lodge is registered as a charity and as charitable giving is the first thing one is taught about in a Masonic Lodge (oops, giving some of our secrets away) I disagree. I'm not disagreeing from idle speculation or rumour, but would suggest that you check out Registered Charity No. 1001298 (New Masonic Samaritan Fund) or any of the other masonis charities (all their names are availble from our head office).

There was a recent investigation into Masonry by a number of Parliamentarians. Interestingly they had to examine all of our ceremonies and all they could criticise was the words 'provide a column of mutual support' taken out of context.

I'm still surprised that you indulge in the 'I spoke to my mate' type of journalistic comment. You don't know, but your mate assures you, that there are cases of Masonic influence in the law and as such you would stop people belonging to the club or make them give up their chosen professions.

DW

I suspect the strange promotions are for reasons other than Freemasonry. If Freemasonry was a way to get advancement in the RAF, how come I never once got a posting I asked for and didn't get promoted (even though at one stage the Air Secretary was a Freemason). I've been a Mason since before joining my first squadron. I wish it was as easy as people make out.

In March 1997 The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee reported on the results of an investigation into Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciacry. The Chairman of the committee was a Chris Mullin - a fanatical anti-mason. He was of the Jacko ilk. Masons were, supposedly, engaged in a conspiracy to hide any wrongdoing by Freemasons, even to the extent that Judges would exonerate criminals who, it was alleged by Mr Mullin, would make secret signs from the dock. He also believed that policemen who were Freemasons failed to take appropriate action against their Brother Masons who had committed crimes.

The investigation ran from 1996-97 and evidence was taken from a wide range of people from the Lord Chancellor, the Magistrate's Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, individual members of the Judiciary, the Bar Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and from Leading Freemasons.

One of the other members of the Committee was The Right Honourable Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE. Although not a Freemason (being a Lady) and not connected with any masons, she managed to retain a balanced view of the enquiry. In an article written by her on the subject she comments:

"As the committee proceedings ground on I became more, not less, convinced that we were on a wild goose chase. The allegations against the Freemasons appeared to based on perception, not fact."

When you review any accusations againgst the Freemasons (just look at this thread) it comes down to perception. Jacko is now keen to portray himself as a serious journalist [re-read your first comments on this thread Jacko!] but still will not attempt to produce any genuine evidence. "A friend of mine could tell you some real stories".

Actually, I would be amazed if he didn't come up with a least some facts. There are probably getting on for a million living (not neccessarily practicing) Freemasons in the UK. Human nature being what it is, I would be very surprised if a few of them were not unsavoury characters who had abused their membership of the craft.

The fact of the matter is that any Freemason worth the name would not. And, thankfully, they are in the vast majority.

The investigation led by Mr Mullin was totally inconclusive. His accusations were not bourne out and the result was a rather wishy-washy statement that members of the Police and Judiciary should register their membership of the society.

Are there Freemasons abusing the promotion system in the Service? It's not beyond the realms of possibility, but no more so than any other method of networking.

The Rugby Clubs and Golf Clubs on every station have far more members than the Freemasons. It is much more likely that preferential reporting occurs between members of the these clubs. Does anyone cry conspiracy when one rugby player reports on another?! [They probably will now?!!]

Short of writing "I am a Freemason, please promote me!" on the front cover of your annual report, how is the board meant to know that you are a mason? Surely every Promotion Board is bound to contain members who play golf or rugby? Will they not be prejudice towards on of their own? It's written in the narrative if you represent the station for any sports.

Oh my God, we have a sporting fraternity that promotes it's own!! Jehovah!

Just because you know that one golfer is being written up by another golfer - what can you do? Nothing. Why? Because it doesn't actually matter.

" It's the Freemasons" is just another lame excuse for lack of achievement. There are probably at least ten better reasons why one person gets promoted over another - the biggest one is usually "right time, right place"!

Incidentally, Mr Mullin went on to ensure that the West Midlands Police were forced to register as Freemasons. It was, of course, Mr Chris Mullin who also campaigned and eventually obtained freedom for the men imprisioned for the Birmingham Pub bombings on the grounds that the verdicts were 'unsafe'. They were given their freedom due to Mr Mullin who has stated that he knows the names of the 'real' bombers but has steadfastly refused to divulge that information.

It is a sad irony that men like Chris Mullin, who will not disclose the names of guilty murderers, should be instrumental in bringing the full weight and power of Parliament to demand the names of innocent policemen for the 'crime' of being a Freemason.

It is all to easy to let the perception get in the way of fact. Freemasonry will only cause disparate loyalties in people that would have found any number of excuses to look after each other. If any of these people join the masons, they usually leave in dissapointment.

Let's try and be a bit more balanced about this.

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.

J/Nick

You said:

Juvenile nonsense or deeply corrupt?

Either way, there's no place for freemasonry (or any other secret society) in a democratic society, let alone in its armed forces. Serving Masons should be exposed and sacked.

Perhaps if you had offered a third option your comment would not have been so deeply offensive to those PPruners who are Masons.

I am not a Mason myself but can fully understand how, to someone who is, the above comment is a red rag to a bull.

If you are now getting annoyed with detailed, reasoned rebuffs that's just tough luck. If you can't take the fall-out don't post such drivel in the first place.

Either come up with names, dates and places of all these supposed corrupt people or keep schtum. Saying 'cos my mate told me so' just isn't good enough to back up such an offensive post. Neither is saying you can't be arsed to do any research. If you are going to say something soooooo contentious at least have the balls to back it up with some substance. If you don't nobody on this forum will ever take you seriously again. You sound like a petulant little boy. I can just picture you stamping your foot and saying "it's my ball and if you won't let me be goalie, I'm going home". Play nicely!

Put up or shut up.

Thank you laser Jet.

Jacko, as the point has been so succinctly put, you should try to maintain a level of consistancy throughout your comments. If you had not given such an ill considered opinion to begin with, this thread would not have become so heated.

"..this is just a relaxing internet debate."

I am glad that you aren't taking these threads seriously - you could turn out to be one evil b£$£%"d ?!!?

I am sorry that you feel unable to offer anything of any substance to the debate. The fact that Baroness Knight is a woman should offer some credibilty to her comments. The fact that elsewhere in her article she states that she has no masonic connections should count for another, or does that simply add to the conspiracy?!

If you read through my comments again Jacko you will see that, despite being incensed by your opening remarks, I have tried to be objective in my arguments. If you wish to make this a 'relaxing debate', apologise for your earlier remarks and continue with a reasoned discussion.

Nice one, Jacko. You've certainly outed a few masons with this thread!

I bet there's a whole great raft more out there just itching to wade into the 'Jack-attack', but can't quite risk going public!!

I'd best apologise before a follower of the great architect of the Universe (or 13 or 33 of them) cuts my tongue out and leaves me at low tide. So let me re-phrase the sentance which caused so much ire.

Juvenile nonsense (I'm afraid that the trouser legs, left-nipple-bearing, solemn oaths and aprons means that I can't help but leave that in) or potentially and perceived to be corrupt?

Either way, there's no place for freemasonry (or any other secret society, political party or narrow interest group) in the armed forces of a democratic society. Serving Masons should be required to identify themselves, and if they fail to do so, then they should be exposed and sacked.

More from the commons committee

"d.

it is not possible on the evidence we received to say that there has never been any abuse of masonic contacts and certainly there are many allegations. But some of the extreme criticisms of widespread abuse we received are manifestly unfounded and the others can not be said to have been substantiated to us on the balance of probability let alone beyond reasonable doubt, although in a small number of cases, such as that in Blackburn, this is a reasonable inference;

e.

where there is evidence of criminal or otherwise improper behaviour by freemasons, the freemasons themselves are taking stronger action against the perpetrators than was the case in the past; whether or not this is because of increased public interest, we welcome it; and

f.

there is a widespread public perception that freemasonry can have an unhealthy influence on the criminal justice system, and we certainly believe that one of the main reasons for freemasonry's poor public image is a perception that it is a secret society. We therefore encourage freemasons to address this perception and to correct the negative image of freemasonry."

and "We believe however 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 - or a column of mutual support, to use the masonic phrase."

But if you want examples so badly, not everyone believes there haven't been any. How about the death of the previous Pope, Calvi and P2, Kenneth Noye's amazing ability to stay out of jail and ahead of his pursuers, and John Stalker just for starters - or was that all down to some charitable golf club? But I'm afraid that this is one thread I still won't take entirely seriously - you're having a laugh.

Aren't you?

Small Cheese

All that Jacko has exposed here are facets of his own personal bias. The Masons on this thread have all declared their membership on this Forum on previous occasions on other threads. Jacko and I have exchanged e-mails in the past. He knows my real name and I know his. Who are you? Seems to me you are the one who doesn't want to risk 'going public'.

Jacko

Glad to see you've given a little ground. I admit that I was taking the p*ss but I don't think Adastral is too happy. I hope your apology helps to smooth his feathers a little.

YellowBelly

Happy now? Sorry I didn't come back to you yesterday - I was working! I am not a Mason but am a wife of and have enjoyed many a social function in their company including one in a very grand setting in London. I have no intention of letting the perception of a few possibly corrupt Masons spoil that! I have never been privy to the 'rituals' and frankly don't give a !!!!! what they entail as long as nobody is physically hurt. I did get a small glimpse of the 'noose' bit during the filming of a TV documentary for a German production company - my husband was the 'star' of the film. I have attended a social function in an RAF Officers Mess where someone produced a chain saw and started carving up all the dining tables - now THAT is really bizarre! :)

[This message has been edited by The Mistress (edited 06 April 2001).]

Jacko

Although not a direct apology I will defer to TM and agree that some ground has been given.

Your selected items from the committee report surely prove my point. Chris Mullin was desperate to prove a massive masonic conspiracy but, as the Committee commented, it was unable to prove any allegations 'on ballance of probabilities' let alone 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It's good to see that you are still innocent until proven guilty in this democratic society.

So it's OK for a politician to withold information on murderers, but you still want to force innocent men to declare membership of a lawful society? I am not sure that I like your idea of democracy.

If you are alleging that the masons are a sinister body, interested only in the promoting self interest and will do anything to help each other out by secret signs and handshakes, then you had probably better stick to fiction in future.

If you are asserting that the Freemasons have been appalling at promoting a good image, then your argument has merit.

For too many years the movement has been able to go quietly about it's business, promoting benevolence and providing a focal point for likeminded individuals. In today's society not even the Royal Family is free from public scrutiny - hence the easy targeting of the masons.

If all people are truly concerned about is the ritual then go to almost any library and take your choice of books on the subject. Knowing about trouser legs, bared chests and bits of rope does not make you a mason. It is the internal qualities that freemasonry regards, not external values and appearances.

Just because we don't shout about our charitable work doesn't make us any less benevolent.

Don't get wound up about the secrecy. How can masonry be a secret society when so many people know about it? I would prefer to use the word privacy, rather than secrecy.

Given that there has been no proof of masonic wrong doing, only allegations, why force people to disclose? And then, where do you draw the line? Rotarians, R&A Golf Membership, Political Parties, Church etc etc.

If you don't think the same 'corruption' exists between members of these organizations then you are not applying the same logic.

The bottom line is that I belong to a society that is thouroughly lawful, promotes benevolence and gives you the opportunity of meeting with some very interesting men and women.

Although I have no objections to people knowing that I am a mason, if you force people to be placed on a register, you are in danger of creating reverse discrimination. "Can't be seen to promote bloggs, bloody nice chap, but he's a mason."

That's not the democratic society I joined the Services to protect.