Nearly everyone on UK paedophile ring list is a Freemason says abuse victim

page: 14
41
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
But as I keep saying, the comments made be a Councillor and a Former Police Chief, both saying Masons need to be investigated, certainly piqued my interest.


I don't agree that the Masons necessarily need to be investigated, but I think, all things considered, that now might be a time for greater transparency. No one has to reveal craft secrets after all, just declare their membership if they hold public office. I don't think that that is much to ask really. Especially under the circumstances. If it is, then I think the question needs to be asked, why?

Out of curiousity, exactly how is it ascertained whether an applicant has a criminal record or not? For my current job, and when I did voluntary work with children, I had to complete and submit a CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) check. I am assuming that the Masons do not carry out such formalised checks...so how do they go about it?




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Out of curiousity, exactly how is it ascertained whether an applicant has a criminal record or not? For my current job, and when I did voluntary work with children, I had to complete and submit a CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) check. I am assuming that the Masons do not carry out such formalised checks...so how do they go about it?


In my jursidiction, and many in the United States, a criminal background check is a mandatory part of the membership process.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
In my jursidiction, and many in the United States, a criminal background check is a mandatory part of the membership process.


And who does that go through? Because I assume if it goes through the Police, they would then have, already, a record of all Freemasons that under these circumstances they could discretely check...



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
And who does that go through? Because I assume if it goes through the Police, they would then have, already, a record of all Freemasons that under these circumstances they could discretely check...


I cannot answer for other jurisdictions but our's goes through the New Jersey State Police. It is not traceable by orginization as it is a standard background check form produced by the State Police and used by all other persons looking to check someone's background, i.e. employers, schools, government agencies, etc.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Actually, just looking at the CRB website, and the Independent Safeguarding Authority one, I can see there being a problem with this. If the Freemasons used this, under the Rehabilitation of Criminals Act they could be sued for discrimination if they refuse membership based on spent offences.

Can anyone clarify, that an individual would be barred from entering the fraternity if they had any kind of offence?

In which case, how can they ascertain 'good character'? My concern is that if they are using 'contacts' within the Police force to find out whether someone has a record or not, not only is that in itself a legal contravention, it is also open to abuse in that it is based on the assumption that the officer concerned is not themselves in some way corrupted.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


So, it therefore wouldn't necessarily include records of arrests that didn't result in convictions?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Can anyone clarify, that an individual would be barred from entering the fraternity if they had any kind of offence?


In my jursidiction conviction of any criminal offense would render the person inadmissable.


My concern is that if they are using 'contacts' within the Police force to find out whether someone has a record or not, not only is that in itself a legal contravention, it is also open to abuse in that it is based on the assumption that the officer concerned is not themselves in some way corrupted.


In my state this would be difficult and would have to entail a personal call or someother direct means of contact with the State Police on the form in question to identify the person as attemtping to join the Masons as they are generic (name, address and social security number only).



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
In my state this would be difficult and would have to entail a personal call or someother direct means of contact with the State Police on the form in question to identify the person as attemtping to join the Masons as they are generic (name, address and social security number only).


Again thanks. The system that you have is quite different to ours...it's a pity we don't have any UK Freemasons on here of late who could help clarify things for me. Certainly from what you say, it would be difficult to 'abuse' such a process...but I am wondering whether that is different over here. But, curiousity somewhat satisfied. Cheers.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
So, it therefore wouldn't necessarily include records of arrests that didn't result in convictions?


No, arrests not resulting in a conviction do not typically show up on a background check. The question on an employment application ties into this: 'Have you ever been convicted of a crime?'


Again thanks. The system that you have is quite different to ours...it's a pity we don't have any UK Freemasons on here of late who could help clarify things for me. Certainly from what you say, it would be difficult to 'abuse' such a process...but I am wondering whether that is different over here. But, curiousity somewhat satisfied. Cheers.


No worries. It could be absued, but as I said, it would be difficult and there is the inevitable paper trail.



edit on 14-11-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude failed his background check and has no beer



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lifttheveil
 

Take a chill pill, I was just proposing a hypothesis. "Thou doth protest too much, methinks"


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
No one has to reveal craft secrets after all, just declare their membership if they hold public office.

Why should I be compelled to do such a thing if it is against my will?


Out of curiousity, exactly how is it ascertained whether an applicant has a criminal record or not? For my current job, and when I did voluntary work with children, I had to complete and submit a CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) check. I am assuming that the Masons do not carry out such formalised checks...so how do they go about it?

In Idaho, it's optional for a Lodge to run a check, but, regardless, when you sign one of our petitions it states that we can run a background check. With that signature we are able to go to the police and run a background check.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
And who does that go through? Because I assume if it goes through the Police, they would then have, already, a record of all Freemasons that under these circumstances they could discretely check...

They don't and cannot track us like that.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
If the Freemasons used this, under the Rehabilitation of Criminals Act they could be sued for discrimination if they refuse membership based on spent offences.

We're a private organization and allowed to choose who we allow in, plus in my jurisdiction we don't tell you why you were denied, but just that you were denied. We're not required to say why one is rejected and why one is not.


Can anyone clarify, that an individual would be barred from entering the fraternity if they had any kind of offence?

Any conviction is a deal breaker.
edit on 14-11-2012 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by lifttheveil




Take a chill pill, I was just proposing a hypothesis. "Thou doth protest too much, methinks"

Not protesting, just debating and discussing, and I appologise if you don't like it but I remind you that is the very purpose of ATS..


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
No one has to reveal craft secrets after all, just declare their membership if they hold public office.



Why should I be compelled to do such a thing if it is against my will?

Because Masons are known to be high up in government and other positions, and they have been implicated in many sick and illegal acts, for that reason secrecy of membership should not be protected. And MP's should have to say if they are a Mason, especially when you swear oaths to masonry that are a conflict of interest.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
My concern is that if they are using 'contacts' within the Police force to find out whether someone has a record or not, not only is that in itself a legal contravention, it is also open to abuse in that it is based on the assumption that the officer concerned is not themselves in some way corrupted.


In Florida, our background checks are conducted by an outside company. Most Grand Lodges are switching to this model if they haven't already done so.


Originally posted by lifttheveil
Because Masons are known to be high up in government and other positions


No, Masons are rumored to be high up in government and other positions. Official inquiries and compulsory registries have turned up almost nothing.


and they have been implicated in many sick and illegal acts


They/we have also been implicated in devil worship, weather control and the 9/11 hologram planes. I believe the UK still respects the right to due process.


MP's should have to say if they are a Mason, especially when you swear oaths to masonry that are a conflict of interest.


"There is nothing herein contained which would violate any of your civil, moral or religious duties or privileges" is stated to every candidate before taking any obligation.
edit on 15-11-2012 by OnTheLevel213 because: made another reply



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
No one has to reveal craft secrets after all, just declare their membership if they hold public office.

Why should I be compelled to do such a thing if it is against my will?


Because, in the context of this thread, and in the context of the allegations made by those who suffered systemised sexual abuse at the Bryn Estyn Children's Home, Freemasons are believe by those victims to have been involved in that abuse. If we look at it hypothetically, if there was a chance that some members of your fraternity were using said fraternity as a cover for paedophilia, or as a means to network with other paedophiles, would you not be compelled to open up the doors and allow investigators in to root out such activity? I know I would. Or in the context that I applied to those who hold public office, if Judges or Police may have been colluding to give lenient sentences or to overlook certain offences, and have been using their membership as Freemasons, to facilitate that collusion, would you not want such activity to be brought to light? Wouldn't such activity contravene the precepts of Freemasonry? Shouldn't those members be chucked out of the fraternity? It is my understanding that such activity violates everything that Freemasonry is supposed to stand for. And, if a person if accused of a crime, should not all of his associates and contacts be questioned, as they would in any other criminal inquiry. I think so. Given the nature of these allegations, I don't think it is unreasonable, for the Freemasons to be expected to want to assist the authorities in anyway that they possibly can, and given that we are talking about crimes, systemised crimes, against children, I would expect them to be as cooperative as they can. Surely, being a Freemason is nothing to be ashamed of.

Now, I think it is important to stress the very different nature of British and US society, and I do not think that it is even remotely useful to tar every one, or every Freemason, with the same brush. So while you make the assertion that Freemasons do not populate the upper eschelons of government or society in the US, we cannot be entirely sure that the same culture applies to the UK. The US works on a different system of elitism, and that to a lesser and greater extent can be found reflected in Freemasonry in the UK.

As you may or may not be aware, in the UK, we have a tiered educational system. The state school system, which is free to all and funded by local and central government. The private educations system which is operated by numerous charitable and private bodies, dependent upon the aims of those particular schools. And finally we have the public school system, which despite it's name, is only open to those who pass certain social and financial criteria. It is, by it's very nature, a training ground for the elite of this country and the common-wealth in general. The vast majority of those holding top flight posts in the UK, in the diplomatic service, merchant banking sector, and the senior civil service, represent the alumni of these schools. Many of these schools, Harrow, Eton to name the two at the top of the pile, these schools have traditionally had a Lodge attached to them which have, at least in the past, included members of the teaching staff.

Within these schools, and the many other public schools that serve the elite of the UK, there has, historically, existed a culture of 'sexual favours' both amongst senior and younger pupils, and the school masters and pupils. I have read numerous autobiographies that allude to, or blatantly discuss the 'buggery' that took place during their school days. Off the top of my head, David Niven mentions it, Kim Philby did, Victor Rothschild claims to have witnessed it, George Melly mentions his enjoyment of it. It has always been an open 'secret'.

Times change of course, but given such a culture, it is understandable that some of those who passed through such an initiation, could and would have developed a taste for it, and that some of those may have moved to less 'consensual' practices. It is not such a huge leap of faith that some of those people also took advantage of the open door of Freemasonry, and subsequently abused the rights and privileges of membership to that fraternity.

I am not saying that all Freemasons are paedophiles by any stretch of the imagination, but I am certain that the possibility exists that some Freemasons, particularly in the UK could be, given the culture of this country specifically. And that it is up to the body of Freemasonry as a whole, to help root out these criminals and predators.




edit on 16-11-2012 by KilgoreTrout because: grammar and punctuation
edit on 16-11-2012 by KilgoreTrout because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by eastendkid
 


Wow, you sure seem to know a lot about freemasonry. You know way more than I do. At what point in my masonic carrier will I learn all the things you speak of? As of this point, it's all been about God, and being a better person. I cannot wait for the Sex and Alcohol part!

Please share with everyone here how many years you have to be in, what the ceremonies are called, which lodge buildings are used, and who is in control of this whole thing? Name real people as you obviously know all there is to know.

Hey, thanks in advance for all your knowledge!



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
If we look at it hypothetically, if there was a chance that some members of your fraternity were using said fraternity as a cover for paedophilia, or as a means to network with other paedophiles, would you not be compelled to open up the doors and allow investigators in to root out such activity?


Let me state for the record that I don't care who knows I'm a Mason either way. I don't advertise it or bring it up unless it flows organically from conversation, but I have no problem giving my lodge membership list to anyone who asks for almost any reason (assuming my brethren feel the same way).

If, however, I cared as British Masons care not to be named as Masons, I have a civil right to keep it private, and an equal right to due process until far more than what has been so far presented as evidence comes to light before surrendering those rights.


I think so. Given the nature of these allegations, I don't think it is unreasonable, for the Freemasons to be expected to want to assist the authorities in anyway that they possibly can, and given that we are talking about crimes, systemised crimes, against children, I would expect them to be as cooperative as they can. Surely, being a Freemason is nothing to be ashamed of.


No government ever begins encroachment against civil rights with a single, obviously monstrous move. The first step always is always made to seem just so sensible, and always in the name of justice for a victim.


I think it is important to stress the very different nature of British and US society, and I do not think that it is even remotely useful to tar every one, or every Freemason, with the same brush.


Again, for the record, we'd probably have these guys kicked out of the lodge already, just for suspicion. (And I think our British brethren are one up on us in that regard.)


So while you make the assertion that Freemasons do not populate the upper eschelons of government or society in the US, we cannot be entirely sure that the same culture applies to the UK.


Thing is, this isn't the first time we've been down this road in the UK. Inquiries have been done and registries created. It just keeps leading to nothing.


It is not such a huge leap of faith that some of those people also took advantage of the open door of Freemasonry, and subsequently abused the rights and privileges of membership to that fraternity.


A just society, however, does not operate on "leaps of faith" in its prosecution, however minor (and I'm not sure I agree that's not a huge leap of faith). I'll again make room for the differences between the US and UK (the UK has recently been even weaker in protecting free expression than the US), but if you were to present the above as a probable cause affidavit in the United States, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.


I am certain that the possibility exists that some Freemasons, particularly in the UK could be, given the culture of this country specifically. And that it is up to the body of Freemasonry as a whole, to help root out these criminals and predators.


It will be, when evidence is presented beyond opinion (for which the councillor has yet to reveal substantiation and, in his latest interview, has downgraded to "I believe...") and innuendo. Again, the first steps toward revoking freedom always look minor to the non-affected, especially compared to the tragedy they're supposed to avenge or prevent. Justice to all concerned cannot come from a process like this, and justice to all concerned, not merely to the more sympathetic party, is both the goal and the imperative of a free society.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I cannot wait for the...Alcohol part!


Or you could always move to New Jersey.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by lifttheveil
 

You were a little overly sensitive to my post.

reply to post by lifttheveil
 

The guy is speculating. He has no evidence that the pedophiles were Masons.

Nor does our Fraternity teach or condone one to be "above morality, above decency".

And the title of the video is misleading and incorrect as nowhere in the video does it prove that ALL the child sex abusers were Masons.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

Investigate the individuals, if they are found guilty and if they were Masons they will be expelled according to the Constitution of the UGLE. I'm not saying let justice run its course, but what I am saying is don't let this turn into some witch-hunt by the anti-Masons nor should we allow accusations to determine the guilt of someone. Logic, reason, and justice should reign. What I also don't like is seeing posts saying that if a Mason isn't found guilty (regardless of actual guilt) that they "may have an accident or randomly commit suicide".

If you want to know the affiliations of public servants, why limit it to just Freemasonry? Should nepotism and corruption be despised regardless of affiliation?

I believe I shouldn't have my rights violated due to allegations, but that's just me.


Surely, being a Freemason is nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm very proud to be a Freemason and most who know me and work with me (to include my time in the military) know that I am a Freemason, but the second someone told me I was compelled to say whether I was or not I'd take my ring off and refuse to answer. It is my right to disclose my private life.


As you may or may not be aware, in the UK, we have a tiered educational system.

Oh I'm aware, for a time I was going to go to college there...and I may be there if I get selected for my internship with the US Department of State.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

I would make a joke against NJ, but Bro. Sigler may fire me from the TWT magazine.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
If, however, I cared as British Masons care not to be named as Masons, I have a civil right to keep it private, and an equal right to due process until far more than what has been so far presented as evidence comes to light before surrendering those rights.


As you may or may not be aware, in 1997, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw issued a bill that required all new judges and police offices to voluntarily declare their membership to the Freemasons and declaration were sent out to all those concerned, as well as, from what I can gather, to established judges and police officers, as well as magistrates and other court officials. 26,000 forms were sent out and about 16,000 responded, of which, the vast majority declared themselves not to be Freemasons. From the returns from judges, about 5% of those were Freemasons.

As a result of this, Jack Straw eventually decided that there was no need for new judges to be required to make such a declaration, and that the allegations against Freemasons showing preference to 'their own' within the justice system had no basis in reality and was a perceptual problem of the wider public.

There are a number of judges, listed on various websites, that have been named as having imposed lenient sentences on those found gulity in court of sexual offences against children. Those offences range from possession of sexual images of children, to rape of children. None of those judges appear on the lists, also available in various places on the internet, of self-declared Freemasons. I therefore, am inclined to agree with Jack Straw's assessment, and certainly, when one looks at the case histories of those judges who did declare membership, there is nothing to suggest that they are anything other than fair and to the most part just when passing judgements. If anything, based on what I have read, it is perhaps regretable that more judges are not Freemasons.


Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Thing is, this isn't the first time we've been down this road in the UK. Inquiries have been done and registries created. It just keeps leading to nothing.


But it does, as demonstrated in the above example, aid in providing transparency for those in doubt or those who have not been served by justice, such as those who were victimised at Bryn Estyn.


Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
A just society, however, does not operate on "leaps of faith" in its prosecution, however minor (and I'm not sure I agree that's not a huge leap of faith). I'll again make room for the differences between the US and UK (the UK has recently been even weaker in protecting free expression than the US), but if you were to present the above as a probable cause affidavit in the United States, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.


And perhaps, that is the whole point, and perhaps that is why such accusations have been whispered into the ears of those victimised. These victims were after all children when these things happened to them, and, all these years later, they are no closer to understanding what, why and how, allowed those things to be done to them. I doubt very much that they plucked the idea of the Freemasons being involved out of thin air. Someone, at some point, placed that idea into their heads, whether that was when they were being abused, or when as damaged adults they tried to seek out justice for the crimes committed against them, it is to me, still, a continuation of their victimisation. They need answers, they need justice, and for some reason, that closure has been denied to them. It is not the fault of the Freemasons that their name has been taken in vain, but nor can I blame them for buying into popular mythology under the circumstances. The Freemasons have nothing to gain in assisting them, but nor do they have anything to lose.


Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Justice to all concerned cannot come from a process like this, and justice to all concerned, not merely to the more sympathetic party, is both the goal and the imperative of a free society.


And it should be the goal of a free and just society to prevent the abuse of it's vulnerable members, children and adults alike. These victims have been denied 'due process'. They gave statements and those statements were deemed irrelevent where they mentioned abuse that took place outside of the 'care' home where they were resident. Files and files of evidence was not examined because it was deemed not to be in the public interest to pursue those lines of enquiry. They have been made victims of both the care system and the justice system, and they have no idea why, which has perhaps led to their believing rumours and untruths. Who can blame them? Someone, somewhere has denied them the right to see their abusers brought to justice and nobody is coming forward to admit that a mistake in that was made.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
If you want to know the affiliations of public servants, why limit it to just Freemasonry? Should nepotism and corruption be despised regardless of affiliation?



Yes it should and I do not limit it to Freemasonry, nor have I ever. As I have stated, I do not believe that Freemasonry as a body is corrupt, and indeed based on what I have read today, I do not believe that Freemasonry has anything to do with the allegations of child abuse, historic or otherwise. The closest affiliation I could find in fact was that one of the governors of the Jersey Children's Home, Haute de la Garenne was also a Freemason, but as he himself admitted, he was not an active or in his words (which under the circumstances are regrettable), 'hands on'. It was never my concern that the Masons were directly involved in child abuse, more that the respectability, and integrity, of Freemasonry could be used by some as a shield by others. And, now perhaps I am more concerned that the anti-masons are even more nefarious than I previously understood, and it is them that are using popular mythology, and propaganda, to detract from their own activities as abusers of children, and that they are planting those beliefs in the minds of their victims to give them more power over them. I honestly do not know, and while I lay no blame at the feet of the fraternity, I would hope that they would do all that they can to aid those victims in uncovering the truth.





top topics
 
41
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join