You Wont Like This. Tuff!!

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by JonP, May 8, 2006.

?

Should we employ free masons to judge band contests?

  1. Yes

    45 vote(s)
    50.6%
  2. No

    44 vote(s)
    49.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    you are deliberately confusing the two completely separate meanings of the word 'discriminate'. as a discriminating or discerning individual, you are free to make your own judgements and decisions, this does not make you guilty of discrimination in its negative/illegal/immoral context. judging something based on relevant criteria is not discrimination in the bad sense.
     
  2. midwalesman

    midwalesman Member

    That may be true Star but then is it not just dependent on the perspective and position of the person or persons involved and their personal attitudes to that exact situation? One man's medicine is another's poison? You always say "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" but if the, lets say, sheep are on the greener side then they might be a bit more developed in the girth department and could have weight problems, whilst the one on the side with less grass could be healthier. Then again could be a bit difficult to work out which sheep is happier?!!? But the comparison is much the same. If you have come across and know a freemason you're perspective is going to be different and therefore so will your judgement of the situation and hence your discrimination of one party over another and this works in the opposite way too.
     
  3. JonP

    JonP Member

    Im only stating what the dictionary says. I didnt write it, I just read it.
     
  4. Bones

    Bones Member

    I would say it is always hear say. If you are a member your self, you would hardly shout it from the rooftops, especially if the constitution of that so called secret society, called on you not to publicise your membership. On an equal point if you could only argue your position by admitting you are a member of a society, thereby breaking its rules and constitutions surely that then becomes a bit of witch hunt. ie prove you are not a witch by drowning. Oh, you can float, so you must be a witch :)

    No answers to this one JonP, but a great thread nontheless.

    On a separate point, there has been a program on recently about the Da Vinci code, in which they spoke about the Bilderbergers. A consortium of world leaders/business people. Dennis Healy was interviewed and basically rubbished any ideas that this was something like the new world order, more so a think tank of like minded individuals. Again, unless you are part of it, you can't realy comment, simply either accept it happens or you end up rubbishing it cos you can't understand.
     
  5. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    if you're saying what i think you are, then i think you are right to a point, however with closed adjudication as we have now at all major contests, 'foul play' type discrimination is only possible if the adjudicator is fundamentally a cheat - regardless of what organisation they then choose to favour. the idea of adjudicators being cheats is simply not catered for. as a result, banning people because of their preferences is impossible, which is lucky because most of our top adjudicators have at least a passing connection to one or more of the leading bands.
     
  6. JonP

    JonP Member

    Thats true, and we have to assume that all adjudicators we employ are impartial of course. But do we really believe that they are? Do you believe that someone who is a member of a cult, or sect, or secret society could and would choose to ignore and perhaps break the rules and vows they have taken to that society in order to remain totally impartial, and is there anyway to know? I fear not, but I also fear that because of this there will always be an element of doubt, which could perhaps be avoided, without too musch diffuculty. If of course the majority believed this to be in the best interst of teh movement and fair play. or perhaps:

    Could we make it mandatory that any membership to such a society be known in the case of an Adjudicator, so at least we know about it, or at least the cotest comittee do? There is no rule saying we cannot ask. Infact should the contest committe not know about it and then be allowed to take that into consideration when employing one or multiple adjuicators for a contest.
    Im not saying they cannot or should not be used and im not suggesting a ban of any kind, but at least then an informed judgement about who we or the contest committee want to judge the competition can be made.
    I dont see how anyone has a right to secrecy in this case? (although im sure someone will help me with this). Free Masons, and other secret society members will hate this as they are not supposed to divulge their membership, and often are afraid of the public opinion, but it would mean at least we know who is judging our competition?
    No witch hunt, just a simple question:

    Are you a member?
     
  7. Rapier

    Rapier Supporting Member

    I think you need to renew the Tinfoil on your hat, and draw the curtains in case the Black Vans are watching you! ;)
     
  8. Bones

    Bones Member

    Everybody has a right to secrecy. What you are prposing smacks of McCarthyism, and the Communist Witch Hunts in the 50's (?) Many peoples careers were blighted because they took the fifth amendment, so what if peoples political or sociological inclinations differ from your own perception of what is right or decent, it doesn't give the rest of us the right to potentially bar them from society. What happens in the situation when someone says that they decline to answer the question put to them. I seem to recall the Civil Service tried this some time with little success, and I recall it was in contravention of the Human Rights Act. In fact Article 9 section 1 Freedom of Thought of said act is as follows.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

    But might I also point out article 10 section 2 of the same act Freedom of Expression

    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    I read that ( and I am not a Lawyer) as You have to respect the individuals wishes and right to to do what they wish so long as it is not in contravention of the law. And equally you have the right to ask the questions as you have done, but you cannot discriminate anything if they decline to answer or you don't like the answer.

    So for the movement to engage in this "who is a mason? question. The movement would have to remain totally impartial and demonstrate potentially in the future, that if they choose not to use a adjudicator because he is a member of a society whose beliefs or obligation my lead us to belive that he cannot be impartial. Then the movement may be in contravention of his Human Rights.

    The last thing we want is Cherie Blair taking cash out of the movement. :)

    Sorry if this response seems long, but it seems to me that the question has now changed to be "Who is a Mason?" And none of us have the right to ask that question and expect the answer.

    What a great thread this is.....
     
  9. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    if not, then there are plenty more reasons to worry about them than connections with the masons. like the fact that in top level contests, most of them spent years of their lives playing or conducting for one of your competitors.

    they absolutely have a right to secrecy, in this case.

    no - and i don't agree with a lot of things that they stand for either - however, none of these reservations have anything to do with brass banding.
     
  10. JonP

    JonP Member

    Supurb post sir. Hats off.

    So am i corecdt in thinking that.

    1) We have no right to ask someone if they are a free mason, or at least they do not have to give us an answer or we may be contravening their human rights.

    2)If we believe that a mason would not be a suitable adjudicator, we actualy have no right to not engage them as they are not breaking any laws?

    What i suggested is that perhaps it would be good for it to be disclosed when applying to become an adjudicator, if you are a member of any of these societys.

    Q. Is it allowed for a Judge to be a mason? And if yes, must they declare it during the appointment process?


    If the answer is yes and no respectivly then there is no argument. And i will conceed that Free masons are suitable candidates for our Adjudicators.

    If Yes and Yes respectivly i think we should insist on the same standards.

    If No and No, well i think you can guess!!!
     
  11. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

  12. jingleram

    jingleram Active Member

    :oops: Haha even though that was a serious post on a serious topic, your analogy still made me laugh lots lol! :D
     
  13. Bones

    Bones Member

    In response to point 1, I think we have the right to ask, we just don't necessarily expect a response

    In response to point 2, I don't belive we have to right to infer being a mason is not compatible with the impartial adjudication required by our Movement.

    However, another spin on this, is that if an adjudicator was to declare himself a mason. I personally would see that as a positive step in that this individual would not be hiding behind a non disclosure rule, and therefore has nothing to hide. Equally he then would be aware that his adjudication would be under strict scrutiny should other known masons be conducting that day.

    There is a positive side to this.

    I think the above post has answered the judiciary question in that the law only recommend a Judge or police officer declare themselves a Mason.

    So the outcome is a yes and no. Judges can be Masons and no they don;t have to declare. So I suppose adjudicators can as well.

    Jon, I have thouroughly enjoyed this thread, wish I'd had the chance to bump into you at the Spring Festival for a few sherbets and more informed chat.....

    Cheers
     
  14. Rapier

    Rapier Supporting Member

    So let me get this straight. A Freemason should not be allowed to judge a bunch of amateur bandsman, but it would be OK for a member of the Ku Klux Klan or Al Quaida to do it?

    I've worked with lots of Freemasons over the years and they were just like real people! ;)
     
  15. Bones

    Bones Member

    It's OK for Freemason, Ku Klux Klan and Al Queida to adjudicate. They're all real people, just with different beliefs and objectives.

    I don't make the rules. :)
     
  16. JonP

    JonP Member

    Cheers, i have enjoyed it too.

    So as Police and Judges are encouraged to disclose thier membership i think we should do the same, and encourage our adjudicators to do the same. I believe this would demonstrate that they have nothing to hide and will remain impartial as the scrutainy of results would be far harsher. I think it would also help to eradicate any suspision people may have of them and thier bias.

    Im forming the following opinion:

    I think we should continue to employ freemasons to adjudicate contests but they should be encouraged to admit thier membership, for the above reasons, and folllowing the example and recommendation of the home office reprot on freemaosnry in the police and the judiciary. quote from the report:

    We recommend that police officers, magistrates, judges, and crown prosecutors should be required to register membership of any secret society and that the record should be available publicly. However, it is our firm belief that the better solution lies in the hands of freemasonry itself. By openness and disclosure, all suspicion would be removed and we would welcome the taking of such steps by the United Grand Lodge

    In this case I think this would do the trick.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2006
  17. Bones

    Bones Member

    I would agree. But we would need to have a caveat to ensure that if an individual refused, as is their right to answer the question. Then how do we have steps in place to ensure they are not discriminated against either consciously or subconsciously.
     
  18. Rapier

    Rapier Supporting Member

    What suspicion? In all the years I've been banding, I've never heard anyone mention Freemasonary and Adjudicators in the same breath. You seem to be the one with the anti freemason bias.

    You'll be blaming them for Elvis, Diana, Kennedy and the Moon Landings next.

    There are easy ways to cheat at contests these days. With bluetooth phones and computers everywhere.

    My theory is that the Box is really one like Magicians use. They go in and 'vanish', which allows them to be in the bar or shopping all day. They just leave a Tape playing with a whistle blowing every 20 minutes or so. And then come back in time to leave it at the end.

    And No I'm not a Mason.
     
  19. AndyCat

    AndyCat Active Member

    When I was banding at the top level it was mentioned frequently, and has been ever since. This was from 1989 onwards, so it isn't a new query, rather one perhaps being "publicly" aired for the first time.
     
  20. Rapier

    Rapier Supporting Member

    Fair enough. Perhaps it's an 'Up North' thing? Anyway, I still think it's pathetic! :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page