The only other groups required to declare themselves to the MET's administration are people with criminal convictions, those who have been dismissed from policing, and lawful professions such as private investigation or journalism. Grouping the Masons with criminals and dismissed officers brands members of the fraternity as being somehow nefarious. Yet, after more than 40 years of anti-Masonic paranoia swirling around UK police, there has never been any proof of Masonic police officers acting improperly as a group.
That England's Freemasons are the second largest charitable group in that country who contribute millions of pounds each year to their communities is immaterial to the MET's leadership.
(For a recap of the historical anti-Masonic claims, conspiracies and paranoia regarding English police departments over the decades, see https://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2025/09/london-police-league-is-hunting-masons.html )
From the UGLE First Rising newsletter on Sunday:
The United Grand Lodge of England (“UGLE”), also acting on behalf of The Order of Women Freemasons and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons (all of which together represent Freemasonry in England, Wales, The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands), announces that it has commenced proceedings against the Metropolitan Police (the “Met”) seeking an injunction requiring the Met to suspend application of its new policy requiring police officers and staff to disclose whether they are, or have been Freemasons.
The new Met policy was announced on 11 December 2025. On 16 December, UGLE wrote to the Met seeking a judicial review of the decision unless its implementation was suspended immediately to allow a full consultation on the policy. The Met has now agreed to full consultation but is not willing to suspend the policy’s introduction. The injunction therefore seeks suspension of the policy pending the outcome of the judicial review.
UGLE has made clear its opposition to the Met regarding any intended action to introduce a reporting requirement that has the potential to undermine public credibility of male and female Freemasons, or that could impact negatively on its members, or the contribution that they make to society. It believes that mandatory declaration breaches the fundamental rights of the organisations and their members and is also in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and UK GDPR.
Commenting today Adrian Marsh, Grand Secretary of UGLE, said:
“There is a contradiction between the Met acceptance of our request for fuller consultation, which we welcome, but then refusing to suspend the decision pending the outcome of that consultation. To date the consultation process has been wholly inadequate, prejudicial and unjust and this injunction is the first step we must resort to, to protect our members whose integrity is impugned by the Met decision.”
Previous attempts by English police departments in the 1990s and early 2000s to force Masonic officers to disclose their memberships have been struck down in courts as being prejudicial and discriminatory, and the European Court of Human Rights declared such previous laws in both England and Italy to be in violation of rights to free association. Forcing officers to declare their Masonic membership will open the floodgates to criminals claiming Masonic influence in their cases, disgruntled fellow employees passed over for promotions, claims of favoritism and other dodgy behavior. This in spite of the fact that all Masons are sworn to uphold the laws of their own lands and to not countenance unlawful behavior. Declaring their Masonic membership invites anti-Masonic paranoia, revenge and false accusations, placing their jobs at risk.
Meanwhile, the press accounts of this dispute between the MET and the UGLE have gone out of their way to mention false allegations of purported Masonic involvement in decades-old police corruption investigations in almost every story published in the last few weeks. Note this headline in the Independent today, clearly trying to associate FREEMASONS! with AXE MURDERERS! before the article even begins:
Unfortunately, I think pushing charitable deeds will not necessarily favourably impact upon the public’s opinion of Freemasonry. It must be acknowledged that few Grand Lodges dip into their own coffers to provide charitable funds. It is usually left to the collective efforts of individual brethren or lodges—which is of course not without merit. Without wishing to associate them with Freemasonry in any way, many of the worst criminals in history were known previously for their charitable endeavours, often raising many hundreds of millions of pounds for charity. The point being, that just throwing money around, doesn’t necessarily speak to the goodness or morality of a person or organisation. It is a cosmetic exercise at best. Much more important is how brethren and lodges behave when out of the public eye. Pooling money for charity is simple, but the way we act in private, and the example we set to ourselves and others is far more important. Thus, we should have nothing to fear from registering our interests and affiliations.
ReplyDelete