2

Thomas Hamilton was responsible for the 1996 Dunblane School Massacre,

In 1991, Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes reportedly recommended that Hamilton's firearm licence be revoked - but the police took no action and the specific reason was "sealed" following the Cullen Inquiry:

Mr Hughes, who took early retirement on medical grounds in December last year after reaching the rank of superintendent, had asked his superiors to consider revoking Hamilton's firearms' licence five years before the killings. He had also recommended that Hamilton should be prosecuted over his conduct at a children's camp.

Douglas McMurdo, then the Deputy Chief Constable at Central, decided not to take any action and the local procurator fiscal ruled that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Hamilton.

Source: The Telegraph, 10 Feb 2003

There were accusations in a book by Sandra Uttley that there was a cover-up to hide that the police had treated him specially in allowing him to retain the gun licence.

Sandra Uttley claims that elements of the police were part of a paedophile ring and part of a cover-up.

Uttley said: "Central Scotland Police should never have been involved in a so-called independent inquiry.

"They were implicated in the events under scrutiny and continually provided Hamilton with renewals of his gun licence despite long-term and repeated warnings that this should not happen.

"It was known that Hamilton had friends in the police force, including one highly placed officer.

Source: Aangirfan

Is there any evidence to support or refute claims of any cover up?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Michael
  • 121
  • 6
  • [Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) The question in the title doesn't match any of the three questions at the end. The question about whether an individual is a Mason is off-topic here. (As is asking if the Pope is Catholic.) – Oddthinking Jul 07 '17 at 16:23
  • @Oddthinking It doesn't specifically matter to my question if they were "Masons" or "Catholics", but rather is their a known conflict of interest - is that on topic? – Michael Jul 07 '17 at 17:42
  • I started to edit this - focussing on the actual claim, but I got lost after the Scotsman, because you seem to be referring to some claims that haven't been referenced. Are they in the Cullen Enquiry report? – Oddthinking Jul 08 '17 at 02:36
  • So far, the most substantial claim is from an anonymous letter. That doesn't seem particularly notable - it only takes one rambling conspiracy theorist to attribute everything to the Freemasons, but it doesn't mean anyone believes it. – Oddthinking Jul 08 '17 at 02:37
  • @Oddthinking I've heard the claim that the police overruled the decision to revoke repeated to me dozens of times over the last ten years - I quickly looked to find other references - that was one of the first I found. Remember this occurred effectively pre-Internet. Please ignore the specific connection to Freemasons - I want to know if the general reversal / cover up claim is true (regardless of why)... – Michael Jul 08 '17 at 08:29
  • Can you find a reference to one of these claims that have been repeated? I searched for about 5-10 minutes, and I found people arguing the Cullen Report shouldn't be suppressed for 100 years and that, maybe, it might just contain details of a police cover-up. However, I didn't see anyone saying "Yes, there was a cover-up", merely "We have no way of knowing." I am not sure what evidence you think Skeptics.SE users can provide. – Oddthinking Jul 08 '17 at 08:49
  • Does the Sandra Uttley part provide the reference you are looking for? I'm hoping Skeptics users can provide more references and accounts to confirm or deny the claims, that individually, we're struggling to find. – Michael Jul 08 '17 at 09:04
  • I have reopened it, after focusing on one question - was there a cover up? (The rest of the questions were rambling accusations without a notable claim.) I don't believe this question will get an answer - there is a lack of public evidence, leaving plenty of room for speculations like this.. – Oddthinking Jul 08 '17 at 11:09
  • @Oddthinking Thank you for your help focusing the question - I'm hoping someone will have some kind of specific evidence, rather than further speculation. Fingers crossed. – Michael Jul 08 '17 at 11:43
  • Ya, the famous paedophile ring. Is that the new Godwin? – RedSonja Jul 10 '17 at 08:34
  • you state clearly that the license was revoked, so nobody "allowed him to keep his license". Maybe someone decided to not enforce the revocation, but that's another matter entirely and there's no need for a conspiracy to lead to that. Someone deciding there's no manpower to invest in it because of understaffing and low assessed risk for example, or simple oversight. – jwenting Jul 11 '17 at 05:48
  • @jwenting I think you've misread the question - they police sergeant recommended his license be revoked - but they never actually revoked it. – Michael Jul 11 '17 at 10:22
  • @Mikaveli the actual revocation is done by a court, not the police. Either way the police have nothing to "cover up" – jwenting Jul 11 '17 at 10:23
  • @jwenting The police are the entity that makes the decision to grant or revoke licences - if they had knowledge about any holder that would indicate they could be a danger to the public, it's their responsibility to act on that information. The police had that information, and chose to do nothing? – Michael Jul 11 '17 at 10:28

0 Answers0