From the Liverpool Echo
Freemasons have been barred from working on the investigation into the alleged Hillsborough 'cover-up'.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is currently investigating claims of a cover-up following the death of 96 Liverpool supporters in Britain's worst ever sporting disaster in April 1989, along with managing the biggest ever criminal investigation into police criminality.
The IPCC decided at the outset of the investigation that Freemasons may not be employed as civilian investigators on work relating to Hillsborough, despite a court ruling which banned discrimination against members.
The new inquests have already heard allegations Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, the senior officer in charge of policing on the day, was a senior freemason who was involved in a 'masonic conspiracy' to shift the blame on to others.
The court has also heard he gave a masonic handshake to a police colleague and was part of the same masonic lodge as the match commander he replaced a month before Hillsborough , Chief Superintendent Brian Mole (now deceased).
Mr Duckenfield himself confirmed when giving evidence last March that he became a Freemason in 1975 and became 'Worshipful Master' of his local lodge in 1990, a year after the Hillsborough tragedy.
He denied his position within the Freemasons had helped his promotion to chief superintendent and any involvement in a 'cover-up'.
An IPCC spokesperson said: “As part of its independent investigation into the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, the IPCC is examining whether there was any form of influence on the decision making of police involved in the disaster, arising from the membership of any organisations or groups.
"The IPCC has policies in place which are aimed to maintain the integrity of our investigations and to ensure there is no actual or perceived bias.
"These policies apply to all our investigations, including Hillsborough, and when implemented may exclude certain individuals from working on specific investigations in order to avoid there being any actual, or perceived, conflict of interest in relation to any aspect of the ongoing investigation.”
The United Grand Lodge of England, representing 200,0000 freemasons across the country, said it was fully cooperating with the commission’s inquiry and did not believe that the ban was necessary.
A spokesperson said: “We strongly urge that there is total transparency [in the inquiry]. We assume the ban is based on uninformed fears and it is totally unnecessary. Our members see this as being a slight on them.”
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2007 it was unlawful to require freemasons to identify themselves when seeking public positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment