Following this news,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/29/freemasons-injunction-metropolitan-police-declare-membership
we have added Updates at bottom of this page.
Freemasons have demanded an emergency injunction from the high court to halt the Metropolitan police’s new policy that orders officers to tell their bosses if they are members of the organisation.
The Freemasons filed papers in London on Christmas Eve and claim the Met’s policy amounts to “religious discrimination” against Freemasons who are also police officers.
They say the Met commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, “is making up the law on the hoof” and accused his force of “whipping up conspiracy theories” about the influence of Freemasons.
The Met has vowed to fight back as it sees the policy as part of its fight to restore trust and credibility, and a case currently under investigation involves claims of masonic influence and alleged wrongdoing.
Adrian Marsh, UGLE grand secretary, said the Met’s decision “casts an aura of mistrust” over the Freemason community.
– how trust-worthy is someone who refuses to be honest?
The original purpose of this article:
House of Assembly 1981-06-10 (1) – SA Parliament – Law Society is a Secret Society – 4180 (pdf)
From pages 52 and 53 of the pdf:
Mr McRAE: This is the one clause on which the Opposition will divide. It is a new clause. We have heard the incredible doctrine this evening that no amendment, no matter how logical, reasonable or sensible, will be accepted. Taking into account the realities of that comment, we must draw the line when it comes to total secrecy. The Law Society is now assuming Mafia proportions. It has written the Bill and the amendments, it has appointed the members, it controls the whole of the discipline, and the money, and now it even keeps the accounts. If Government back-benchers are not disturbed about that, I am absolutely stunned.
The Hon. E. R. Goldsworthy: Stoned or stunned?
Mr McRAE: Stunned. A point of order, Mr Chairman.
The Deputy Premier reflected on me by implying I had indulged in marijuana when he said I was stoned.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the honourable member ask for the remarks he considers offensive to be withdrawn?
Mr McRAE: I surely do.
The CHAIRMAN: If the honourable Deputy Premier uttered those remarks, I would like him to withdraw them.
The Hon. E. R. GOLDSWORTHY: Certainly, Mr Chairman. I was asking a question; I did not hear clearly. I asked whether the honourable member was stunned or stoned. I withdraw.
Mr McRAE: I am trying to indicate to the Government back-benchers that, if they want to get some respectability into this whole farce, the circumstances that we have had tonight, they should at least make the society produce the accounts in Parliament. If everything else is to be secret, Parliament has no function at all.
Mr Crafter: It is a secret society.
Mr McRAE: It is a totally secret society. I indicated earlier that in many ways I support the Law Society, but in other respects I am critical of it.
Mr Lewis interjecting:
Mr McRAE: I hope the member for Mallee understands that the sum referred to is not inconsiderable, and that his constituents will be looking to this pool of money for their legal aid. If a lawyer defrauds, it is to this money that the member’s constituents will look for recovery. If this amendment is lightly cast aside, the blame will be on the Government.
The CHAIRMAN: The question is—
Mr McRAE: Am I to understand that I am not even to receive a reply from the Minister in charge of the Bill?
The Hon. E. R. Goldsworthy: The answer is ‘No’.
Mr McRAE: The position now is that not only will no reasonable amendment be accepted in any circumstances but also I cannot expect a reply. I am amazed.
The Hon. H. ALLISON: We are ransacking the front bench to find a copy of the amendment. The Government will not accept the amendment: it is against the wishes of Cabinet and the Government.
Mr McRAE: Is it too much to ask whether, in addition to the statement that this amendment is against the wishes of the Government, the Minister can give any reason that can be advanced to Parliament, or have we now reached the stage where Parliament does not get reasons?
The Hon. H. ALLISON: The proportion of the interest that is to be paid into a specific fund to cover legal aid and guarantee losses is regarded by the Government as being sufficient guarantee in this matter.
Mr McRAE: Obviously, I hope it is sufficient, but that is not the point. I am asking that the accounts be tabled in Parliament. That is what the new clause provides. I hope the Minister will take advice from the law officers to ensure that the provision means what I say it means and that it is not unreasonable.
Mr CRAFTER: The accountability of the Law Society for moneys contained in solicitors’ trust accounts is the subject of great discussion in the community. It is a scandal that only two-thirds of the money held in solicitors’ trust accounts collects interest. The remaining one-third remains with the banks, which do not pay interest on that sum. It has been calculated that, if that one-third interest was collected and put to the purposes of this Bill, that is, the solicitors’ guarantee fund and Legal Services Commission purposes, an extra one-third of a million dollars would be provided for those purposes in this State.
NoticeSecrecySolicitors (docx) – an AI assisted draft letter and notice that may be edited and used in any matter where a legal team or agent has any interest in any matte7r you might be dealing with.
Update 1:
Add enquiry to confirm existence (or not) of any “declarable association policy” or any policy/Act/legislation/treaty/agreement that might prevent disclosure of secret associations or agreements.
Update 2:
The author hereby provides conditional acceptance upon the Agency’s written confirmation that:
(a) no officer, employee, contractor or agent involved in this matter is subject to, or participates in, any association, agreement, undertaking, rule, code, expectation, custom or understanding (whether written or unwritten, formal or informal, public or confidential) that could reasonably be perceived to influence, conflict with, or affect impartial handling of this enquiry; and
(b) no such conflicts exist or, if they do, full particulars have been provided together with evidence of all steps taken to manage, mitigate or eliminate them.
Absent such written confirmation within [14/21/28 days], the author reserves all rights and remedies on the basis that any actual or perceived conflicts remain unaddressed, rendering further engagement or decisions in this matter potentially vitiated by bias, unfairness or impropriety. Any adverse treatment, delay, or outcome in the absence of this confirmation will be deemed to arise from undisclosed influences contrary to the Agency’s duties of impartiality, procedural fairness and good administration.
Enforcement leverage
-
Preserves your position: This framing treats silence or vague responses as tacit admission, strengthening grounds for complaints to ombudsmen, internal reviews, or judicial challenges where procedural fairness is assessed.
-
Legal hooks: Ties directly to statutory duties (e.g., public sector codes, administrative law principles like bias and reasons requirements), making it harder to ignore without risking findings of maladministration.
-
Escalation path: If unmet, follow up citing the condition as unmet, then escalate to integrity bodies or courts, arguing the agency’s failure confirms the risk of “one rule for them.”
Update 3:
Feel free to use/edit the following for inclusion in any matter you are dealing with.
Replace Agency with the Department or office you are dealing with.
The author requests that the Agency disclose whether any officer, employee, contractor or other agent involved in the consideration, handling or determination of this matter is subject to, or participates in, any association, agreement, undertaking, rule, code, lodge, fraternity, society or other organised arrangement (whether formal or informal, public or confidential) that:
-
imposes obligations of allegiance, loyalty, mutual assistance, secrecy or preferential treatment between its members; and
-
could reasonably be perceived to influence, conflict with, or otherwise affect that person’s ability to act impartially, independently and solely in the public interest in relation to this matter.
For the avoidance of doubt, this request includes (but is not limited to) any membership, pledge or adherence to secret or quasi‑secret organisations, side agreements or internal rules that might give rise to a real or perceived conflict of interest when exercising powers or functions in respect of the author or this matter. Where any such interest, membership or obligation exists, the author requests written confirmation of:
-
the general nature of the association or obligation, and
-
the steps the Agency has taken, or will take, to manage, mitigate or remove any resulting actual or perceived conflict of interest.
Last Updated 8 months ago
Views: 677