Police rethink on membership order

news.bbc.co.uk...

Police rethink on membership order

The PSNI has been forced to re-think its position

The PSNI has opted for a rethink over whether individual officers must declare membership of organisations like the Masons.


The change in position follows a challenge by the Masonic Order and two members of the police force.


It is understood that the onus to notify police chiefs about membership under General Order 17/2004 remains in force, however, the Police Federation said that the decision to inform lies with the individual officer.

It had argued that such a registration would place a "black spot" on officers' heads.

The federation said officers had now been told that 4,500 notification forms which had been completed and returned would remain sealed and would be destroyed, unread, on request by individuals.

Originally, Chief Constable Hugh Orde said officers should have to comply with the Registration of Notifiable Memberships as recommended in the Patton Report.

-----------------------

Now who was treading on whos civil liberties ?

About time they started thinking about the rights of the Police members not to be marked with the politcal equivalent of a star of david.

A man has the right to belong to whatever group he wants, without needing to declare it, especially to folks who have the stated purpose of removing him from the job for simply BEING a mason.

And, if you replaced Mason in the demand to register with Jew, or Catholic or Baptist, or Communist, or... folks would be up in arms.

and the people of Britain have a higher right to know if their police force belongs to subversive groups!

I think that every policeman in every country should be required to make known any and all affiliations.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I think that every policeman in every country should be required to make known any and all affiliations.

Why? Should they be any different than a stock broker, prison guard, milk man?
They are protected by privacy, why not cops?

YES!
Police are different.
Politicians, bureaucrats and ALL public employees should be required to make known all their affiliations.

Stockbroker- if he is a public employee.

These folks are paid with public money. Money that belongs to everyone. When they became recipients of the public money they also became answerable to the public.

An ironic twist to this:
In the U.S., federal employees are required to disclose ALL affiliations. Yet when an affiliation later comes to light that was overlooked it is merely a clerical error.

The rationale for disclosure may not be agreeable to you but historically it is proved valid. As far back as the Roman Empire affiliation of the soldiery was known least an unbeknown subversive be called upon to protect society.

You wouldn't want a NAMBA member being assigned to patrol school grounds.

You wouldn't want a mafiaso assigned to patrol the diamond district.

No one accepting public employment should object. Those that do are suspect of dual or conflicting loyalties.

[edit on 12/11/2004 by PublicGadfly]

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
You wouldn't want a NAMBA member being assigned to patrol school grounds.

You wouldn't want a mafiaso assigned to patrol the diamond district.

No one accepting public employment should object. Those that do are suspect of dual or conflicting loyalties.

[edit on 12/11/2004 by PublicGadfly]

You are grasping at straws, playing abstracts. There are only so many Jeffery Dalhmers in the world. Try again. Unless the Patriot Act has value.

BTW, I'm a public employee, my employer derserves none of this info.

I disagree with you.

I worked for the federal government and I provided all such information. There was more than one time this information should have been known to the government. Sure it is prying, but we aren't talking private enterprise.

Public employment means public trust.

The U.S., Britain and many other countries have had times in their recent histories where membership in any kind of society had significance.

The anti-mason party in the U.S. was one, as was the Golden Circle. Had the U.S. required such notices then the Civil War would not have gone the way it did. The Golden Circle members crippled the north for months yet many were government employees!

How about Sien Fien or IRA membership in the U.K.? That should be known.

I don't understand why the U.K. masons are making such a big thing out of this, the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master after all.

Al-Queda, KKK, WeatherUnderground (if any still exist), Michigan Militia, etc.

The lists are long- there are a lot of groups that want to cut their own special piece out of society. Society should not have to be worried about its own employees.

BTW, you (intrepid)do know that the KKK and Communist party both had strong groups in Canada at one time, right?

You as a public employee should be above reproach.

Gadfly, you ARE reaching. The basic problem with your position is that is assumes that a man is guilty of a crime, before any crime has been charged. The McCarthy era should at least serve as an example of what is wrong with the position you have taken.

But you ignore my point... again. If we required, say, all Jews to declare their religious affiliation before taking a job with the government, or, say, all catholics (after all, they owe a duty to the POPE...) before takinig said government jobs, can you imagine the righteous anger and uproar that would follow? And the immediate departure from government service of the fellow stupid enough to actually suggest it?

No, you only take this position because you are opposed to masonry, for what reason I still haven't seen explained... how about that group YOU joined. It is much more suspect that masons, yet you act as if you are posting in righteousness, when the fact is, you are not being honest.

Fortunately, this can NEVER happen in the United States, where we have a constitutional right to privacy (well, a court FOUND right anyway). It would be funny, really, to see anyone try that... at least the UK is getting a little sensible about this issue and seeing how evil it makes them look to try to require registration.

There is, after all, only ONE reason to try to require this registration... and that is a pogrom, otherwise it makes no sense.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niem�ller

First they came-
Why is it that whenever things get tight, Hitler or the Nazis are thrown in?

Remember McCarthy? Yeah- do you remember John Birch and the Communist party?

That is when knowing what people belonged to in the last century in America became important.

By your (theron) view point ANYONE belonging to anything should be allowed to have police power until AFTER they commit a crime.

I don't like that. If someone belongs to something that is not harmful to society and wants to be paid by society then why should they object to telling their employer?

In America membership in many organizations that otherwise seemed harmless has been important to know. You want Adventists or conscientious objectors assigned to guard the wall?

You being Anglo (probably) in Southern California- how about a member of La Raza as a policeman? A pachuco or the Blue Cross (not the insurance folks) or the Crips, etc. That would be rich wouldn't it?

Or a Black Panther in Compton as a judge.

Anyone that takes public money owes the highest duty to the public- the public should not have to worry about where someone's loyalties are.

If you can not be open and honest with those that pay you then you should work someplace else.

I can't see any more reason to trust some white, middle-class dude than I can to trust some low income redneck. (the redneck would get jail time and the middle-class guy would claim entrapment and get a suspended sentence)

Ties bind. I've seen people develop immediate memory loss when one of ��their own�� is accused. It isn't JUST masons, it is lots of people in lots of situations.

I've been to court a few times and I always find out what the judge belongs to before hand. If he's a mason I [deleted for posterity]*, **

*"to have my body cut in two, my bowels removed and burned to ashes which are then to be scattered to the four winds of heaven."
**maybe a little �be you off or from . . . .� when the need arises

Give me a jury trial against a mason and he will lose. Once the jury realizes the history of secret societies, the manipulation of government they are capable of and a fair rendition of an oath like:

. . .
do hereby and hereon most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the secrets, arts, parts, point or points, of the Master Mason's Degree, to any person or persons whomsoever, except that it be a true and lawful brother of this Degree, or in a regularly constituted Lodge of Master Masons,

running out of my 500 word limit, so
part 1 end

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
First they came-
Why is it that whenever things get tight, Hitler or the Nazis are thrown in?

Please note, I did not use the word hitler or nazi, you did. However, the allusion is appropos in this case, thank you.

Remember McCarthy? Yeah- do you remember John Birch and the Communist party?

Yep, sure do, and THAT example is precisely why I object to lists. The McCarthy era ended with no communists and a LOT of people out of work because of slanderous accusations made without foundation, and a lot of useless fear... VERY unAmerican, and I am glad it is gone. Are you actually advocating McCarthyism?

That is when knowing what people belonged to in the last century in America became important.

It was NEVER important except to certain self important... folks. Goebbels, Goering, Himmler and Hitler would have been proud of McCarthy...

By your (Theron) view point ANYONE belonging to anything should be allowed to have police power until AFTER they commit a crime.

Police Power? Where do you get that I am calling for anyone to have police power??? What I am calliing for is what the constitution of this great country guarantees, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom FROM intrusion... in a word, FREEDOM. How do you get police power out my refusal to sign up my memberships with anyone that asks?

I don't like that. If someone belongs to something that is not harmful to society and wants to be paid by society then why should they object to telling their employer?

Because WHO decides what is harmful or not harmful? Should we register all muslims in this country? Should we register all... Jews? Should we register everyone that posts on the internet? Should we register all folks that are raised in a religion but then give it up?

No, in THIS country, a person is considered INNOCENT until proven guilty of a crime. If you want to registger child molesters, murderers, rapists, conmen, thieves, pimps, panderers etc, AFTER they are convicted, I'm ok with that, but if I have violated no crime, I should not be on any list, or required to register.

After all, the WHOLE point of a list is to round folks up, to track them, and to keep them from working... now, all the folks in the UK that are in favor of registering masons are in favor of forcing us out of police, judicial, or any government jobs. Is that fair? Is that what YOU want, Gadfly?

In America membership in many organizations that otherwise seemed harmless has been important to know. You want Adventists or conscientious objectors assigned to guard the wall?

They are only required to make that declaration to NOT be assigned to defend the wall, so no, I do not want them on a list. Besides, your simile doesn't work, since you have to VOLUNTEER for the military these days. There is no point in registering people.

You being Anglo (probably) in Southern California- how about a member of La Raza as a policeman? A pachuco or the Blue Cross (not the insurance folks) or the Crips, etc. Or a Black Panther in Compton as a judge. That would be rich wouldn't it?

I refuse to discuss my race with you, it is irrelevant, and I don't care if a member of La Raza is a policeman. I imagine that several ARE. I do not care what groups anyone belongs to until they break the law. After that, well, they are automatically on many lists.

Anyone that takes public money owes the highest duty to the public- the public should not have to worry about where someone's loyalties are.

Really?? I suspect the loyalty of most government employees is the SEUI and to their families. Making lists is anthetical to everything America stands for, and no, I do not worry about people's loyalty as long as they do the job they are hired to do correctly.

If you can not be open and honest with those that pay you then you should work someplace else.

That is NOT the issue. Twenty years ago, a gay man could not admit he was gay without losing his job... would you say he was not being honest with his employers? I wouldn't. My employer does not need to know what I do when I am not working for him, whether I wear armor on weekends (Society for Creative Anachronisms), fly airplanes (Aircraft Owners Pilot Association), raise money for Childrens Hospitals (Shriners), or am plotting the political overthrow of the legitimate government of the United States (communists/socialists/democrats...)

No, its none of my bosses business.

I can't see any more reason to trust some white, middle-class dude than I can to trust some low income redneck. (the redneck would get jail time and the middle-class guy would claim entrapment and get a suspended sentence)

Wow, what a sad world view. Scott Peterson was just found guilty of killing his wife and unborn child and OJ Simpson was found not guilty of killing his WHITE wife. Both were guilty as sin. Don't try to tell me about the justice system.

Ties bind. I've seen people develop immediate memory loss when one of ��their own�� is accused. It isn't JUST masons, it is lots of people in lots of situations.

Well, you have yet to provide ONE instance where masons have not acted fully within the law respecting a court case, though you keep tossing it out as if you knew one. Masons are, for the most part, better than the average person. I KNOW I can trust any mason, withersoever dispersed around the globe, on the simple evidence of his masonic affiliation, and THAT, my friend, is powerful, and gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling...

I've been to court a few times and I always find out what the judge belongs to before hand. If he's a mason I [deleted for posterity]*, **

*"to have my body cut in two, my bowels removed and burned to ashes which are then to be scattered to the four winds of heaven."
**maybe a little �be you off or from . . . .� when the need arises

What in G-D's name are you on about? If you try to leverage a judge by claiming masonic affiliation, and the judge IS a mason, he will disqualify himself. I have SEEN it happen. I went in on a civil action I brought against someone, and the judge recognized my ring and necklace (one or the other) and recused himself, stating that he was a mason and therefore could not hear the case. Good for him.

Give me a jury trial against a mason and he will lose. Once the jury realizes the history of secret societies, the manipulation of government they are capable of and a fair rendition of an oath like:

running out of my 500 word limit, so
part 1 end

You are so wrong. You would not be allowed to even introduce that in a case. Nor would I that I was a mason. It is inadmissable... nice try though, but again, it is clear you have no concept of how the judicial system works, either, but you have given a very interesting insight into how your mind works....

FEAR. You fear that maybe, somehow, some way, a mason, unknown to you, will get an unfair advantage... well, in my business, it is TRUE. In the courts, it is not.

I hire masons where and when I can. When I look for a service provider, I seek out a mason. If a mason is in front of me and needs a job, and I have one, I will give it to him, and have, and do. The business I am in is OWNED by masons, and most of the folks working for us are masons... we hire services from masons, and make a point of using services from masons exclusively...

If you don't like that... too bad. There is nothing illegal in it, nor immoral, but no mason I know would even try to take advantage of a masonic relationship with a cop or a judge...

That fear is a terrible thing, there, Gadfly. You really should seek help dealing with it.

Claiming a mason could not gain advantage in court- get real theron- like our court system really works

theron statedThat is NOT the issue. Twenty years ago, a gay man could not admit he was gay without losing his job... would you say he was not being honest with his employers? I wouldn't. My employer does not need to know what I do when I am not working for him, whether I wear armor on weekends (Society for Creative Anachronisms), fly airplanes (Aircraft Owners Pilot Association), raise money for Childrens Hospitals (Shriners), or am plotting the political overthrow of the legitimate government of the United States (communists/socialists/democrats...) emphasis added

This is the crux of the entire matter. All the wailing about rights is smoke and mirrors. IF you (as a public employee) belong to ANYTHING that affects my (as a citizen) right to expect your complete fidelity then I deserve that knowledge.

I won't pick your post to pieces, but I want to address the John Birch society. You flipped onto McCarthy without hitting the real problem in that era. John Birchers were anti-communist, but they were also anti-constitutionalists (btw they are still around in large numbers). As with the KKK in 1950's America public employees that belonged to either organization funneled information about citizens into their organizations. Black-mail, intimidation and massive political/judicial corruption was nationwide.

Public employees have power over lives that private employees do not. Public employees have a protective shield (sovereign immunity) that private employees do not. I don't want the same ��reach�� that existed in the 1950s to exist again. Individual rights get left at the employment office when you become a public employee. Notice the term- PUBLIC.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I won't pick your post to pieces, but I want to address the John Birch society. You flipped onto McCarthy without hitting the real problem in that era. John Birchers were anti-communist, but they were also anti-constitutionalists (btw they are still around in large numbers). As with the KKK in 1950's America public employees that belonged to either organization funneled information about citizens into their organizations. Black-mail, intimidation and massive political/judicial corruption was nationwide.

Public employees have power over lives that private employees do not. Public employees have a protective shield (sovereign immunity) that private employees do not. I don't want the same ��reach�� that existed in the 1950s to exist again. Individual rights get left at the employment office when you become a public employee. Notice the term- PUBLIC.

Well, thank GOD the courts disagree with you on that last, about losing your rights when you take public employment. There are laws that address the misuse of government data, and many people have been prosecuted for illegal usage... NONE OF THEM WERE MASONS.

So your position is untenable. Face it, your WHOLE argument is based on fear of the unknown, and you have a lot more to fear from the "best intentions" of public employees than you do from masons, who are dedicated to moral and upright behaviors.

As for the John Birchers and so forth, YOU brought them up, not I. I simply agreed that McCarthy and the Birchers, and the KKK are DEMONSTRABLY dangerous to society, whereas Masonry is DEMONSTRABLY not dangerous to society.

In other words, you are focusing on that which you know nothing about, rather than on that which is publically known as a danger... bad planning.

So, you want to address the secret society YOU joined? Or are you just going to hide it and ignore my comments on it? Whatcha got to hide, there, old son? Pointing the finger at us while trying vainly to conceal your own past?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
IF you (as a public employee) belong to ANYTHING that affects my (as a citizen) right to expect your complete fidelity then I deserve that knowledge.

No you don't, and that's not about to change any time soon. If there is a problem SIU gets involved. They do their job well, the regular police, whether they have done something or not, HATES SIU.

intrepid we are in complete disagreement on this.

I believe one way and you another.

I was a federal employee (American) for seven years, military four years and in both those capacities I had no problem with full disclosure.

I have no idea who or what SIU is.(special investigative unit?)

It really bothers me that you believe you can belong to something that denies me your complete fidelity. That is one of the hallmarks of civil service.

The attitude of ��after�� a problem occurs is wrong. This is what allowed secrets to exfiltrate from one country to another. This is what allowed the Klan to brutalize non-whites in my country.

If I were a Brit living in No. Ireland I assuredly would want to know any Sien Fien or IRA coppers, likewise if I lived in some catholic area I would want to know of any that belonged to an Orange unit. I don't want to know after, I want to know before.

Likewise if I were a Non-Frence Canuk I would want to know of any coppers that belonged to a seperatist group if I lived in Quebec.

It's not just the police- it is EVERY public employee.

Take public money you owe the public. Why hide?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Take public money you owe the public. Why hide?

Nothing to hide, it's a matter of privacy.

I take public money BUT I also provide a neccesary service to said public. BTW, every employee is screened through CPIC, which provides the gov't with ALL the info they need to clear you. Affilliations are not neccesary. If you think so, you are WAY too paranoid.

Hey why should it matter?
According to you guys ALL Freemasons walk about wearing Masonic Jewelry and have "Kiss Me I'm a Freemason" bumperstickers on their cars.
Its not like the Freemasons are a secret society or something sinister...

I would have thought you'd all be proud to stand up and say "Yes I am a Freemason, and damn proud of it too."

After all its just paranoid nutbars like myself that say the majority of Freemasons won't even tell their wives of their affiliation until they get them into OES or some other similar "Stepford Wives" group.

BTW I'm very much of the opinion this "Intrepid" guy is a Mason - maybe he'd like to give an honest answer to this?
If he is and he isn't revealing his affiliation then don't you think his position as a 'moderator' in this forum is at odds - very much like a policeman who won't admit his affiliation?

I have no problem answering ANY question about ANY affilliation.

Question?

"Intrepid" Are you a member of ANY of the Masonic organisations discussed in this forum?
The question is both rhetorical and literal.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
"Intrepid" Are you a member of ANY of the Masonic organisations discussed in this forum?
The question is both rhetorical and literal.

No, I am not affiliated with the Masons on ANY level.

My membership of ANY organization is pretty limited to ATS. Sportztalk is also important to me, but Sports are sucking right now.

Next.

NEXT!

You're up Mr. Dead.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by intrepid]