Mark Rowley seems to be suggesting as such…
1 Like
I can’t see how that would be possible, given they are international and come in many guises. They would just exist with greater secrecy if attempts were made, after all the church has in the past tried and failed.
3 Likes
I cannot see anything but a white, empty box. However, my understanding was that Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner is simply saying that those within the Met, need to disclose if they are members of the Masons.
A bill was before parliament last year which sought to make it compulsory that membership, by police officers, of certain organisations, must be declared. So it is not really anything new. However, I can see if it is only for certain belief groups & not all, why this would be unacceptable.
3 Likes
I very much doubt that banning would work - it would simply make them become (even more) secret societies. I do think they should be forced to be more transparent.
I first came across masons at work when I worked in factories in the midlands and then manchester. I have never had so many strange handshakes (thumb pressing down on the middle knuckle, if you don’t know). I also fast became aware of really poor managers who clearly got their job or promotion through their masonic membership - it cannot possibly have been through talent. However, there were also some very good managers who I knew to be masons. Note, there were very few women managers (maybe one or two) so one wonders if there was also exclusion of definitive non-masons.
That for me is the problem - the potential for bad candidates getting key roles and the potential for corruption. That means such secret societies have the potential to be a problem. Even though they can also do good things.
2 Likes
In some ways what you are describing is the levelling up, of a very uneven playing field. For example, would Prince Andrew have got away with his sleazy lifestyle, had his mother not been who she was? And what about Donald Trump & his ability to get into the right University or out of a very unpleasant war. ( Vietnam.) Would he have achieved either without a very rich daddy?
Getting what you want due to connections is not exclusive to freemasonry.
1 Like
Excellent point .
As we wanna be Scottish would say – Aye, that’s richt enough, ye are .
1 Like
That’s how diversity works. IT’s a form of discrimination and racism by excluding a particular type/race/gender of person.
Described like that, you are right. Although if we take, for example, a very well paid group of connections built up through shared private schooling, top tier university and then into the same professional services career as daddy - then I also find this unfair. Which why I am happy to see VAT on private schools, unhappy to see unpaid internships still going on, unhappy that public schools still struggle to get kids into the very good universities but not because of the capability of the kids.
However is there not a significant and marked difference between a closed and secretive group that vows to support the other members, in secret, and just a bunch of well heeled, well connected people who want to see the best for the children?
The only difference I can see is that the parent doing it for their children, is doing it from a selfish, self-serving perspective. Whilst the masons choices are based upon a shared similarity & thus that choice is much less selfish.
I, too, have an issue with masons, selfish parents & the old school tie network. But I guess it’s because, in part, I am not one of those inward looking groups. I imagine I would think different, if I were benefiting from such an unjust system.
Jobs should be awarded on the best for the post basis, not because of who you know, or where you went to school etc.
3 Likes
That is the old White talking point that diversity means we are being excluded facing reverse racism but no that is not the case at all , HOWEVER living in Miami I find by far White as in Anglo / Caucasian whatever we are now called far more inclusive then Hispanics which is something the left buries their head in the ground about .
1 Like
And in a way they are right. But it is positive discrimination, done for all the right reasons & what people like OldGreyFox, needs to realise is that. If they feel so bad about discrimination done against their sort, for the right reasons. Imagine what it feels like when it’s done out of hatred & ignorance & when it affects every part of your life. From the moment you are born to the moment you die. And all because your skin is the wrong colour, or for some other equally meaningless reason.
2 Likes
When I was drafted the racism against Blacks was through the roof , they could count on being classified as Infantry , the lucky ones got artillery .
Who said I feel bad about being discriminated against?
And where did I post that it was ‘My Sort’ who are being discriminated against?
This is exactly my point!
1 Like
Diversity does exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do, it just provokes people who would normally be accepting. I can only speak for the UK and the way I see it.
1 Like
If you have a real secret society, no one should be able to find it to ban it, yes?
1 Like
Lol true but hard to keep a secret now a days .
Rowley. “Suggests” !!.
A 300yr old.“Pie in The Sky”.
Favoured by Police Officers. Who can never be forced to reveal.
As said above.
Any pressure to Ban. Would create. More Untouchable Secrecy.
***** >> "Then think ‘agin’ ".
1 Like
If a requirement to reveal membership to any organisation results in it’s members resorting to secrecy. Then surely the members of that organisation feel they have something to hide? As otherwise, why would they need to cover up membership?
Many groups. The police being just one such group, among many others, who are required by law to reveal personal information as a result of their job. Either for obvious public protection. Or for less obvious bias reasons. I used to have to complete a 3 yearly enhanced personal check when I was working & a friend who worked in a bank had something similar aswell. It is not just the police. So I fail to see what real change that including masonry membership in the details that the police have to have to declare, makes.
My understanding is, this will simply record freemasonry membership, in the same way religion, hair colour or a multitude of other details are recorded by employers. It is invasive yes. But that is something that goes with certain jobs.
1 Like
A valid point. I recall being obliged to declare any external directorships and any investments in companies which the firm I worked in was involved (so any shares). That just came with the job and there was good finance regulation reasons for that.
Here in France it is mandatory to declare all banks accounts, particularly overseas bank accounts, each year in the annual tax return. Failure to do so comes with a fine of up to 1,500 euros per year of missed declaration - per account.
2 Likes