by Les May
MEA culpa. More inaccurate journalism I'm afraid. In my
article 'The martyrdom of Simon Danczuk', I suggested that Mr D's story of a man
emerging from the shadows to warn him not to mention Leon Brittan at the Home
Affairs Select Committee meeting of 1 July 2014, was produced whilst he was
being questioned.
I was wrong; it
emerged a few days later.
I realised this as I was reading through the record of what Simon
Danczuk said in response to the 31 questions put to him by the Committee. As with the LBC interview with Ken
Livingstone and David Mellor on 10 October none of the questions were
particularly searching. No one thought
to ask him about how he had collected his evidence or about its
reliability. I gained the impression
that no one had actually read his book 'Smile for the Camera' and it clearly
did not occur to anyone on the Committee that one of their own might just be
telling porkies. Sorry, I meant of
course 'being guilty of inaccurate journalism'. Or as one blogger put it
'wasting police time'.
Just as I conflated Danczuk's appearance before the Select
Committee and his 'man in the shadows' story, Danczuk and Baker conflated two
quite separate issues in their book. The very real problems of just who knew
about the high levels of sexual activity between the boys at Rochdale's Knowl
View school in the years before it closed and the question of whether Cyril
Smith was involved in abusing boys at the school.
Knowl View was a residential school which opened in
1969 and had a troubled history. In the
years following its closure in 1994 it was the subject of claims of a 'cover
up' going back to an Independent on Sunday (IoS) article in 1995. Strenuous attempts are made in 'Smile for the
Camera' to associate Smith with sexual abuse of boys at the school. But they largely rely upon the suppositions
and opinions of a single individual, social worker Martin Digan, and it is
difficult to find any independent evidence for them. As is the norm for this book, there is no
chronology.
According to the authors Mr Digan started work at
the school in the late 1970s. In what
must surely be one of the most remarkable statements in the book they tell us, 'For
many years he was oblivious to what was happening in the school – until he was
promoted to head of care and began to realise that things weren't quite right.'
The authors don't think it necessary to tell us
when this was. But a Manchester Evening
News (MEN) article from 2 December 2012 indicates Mr Digan became head of care
in 1994.
So what had
been happening in the school?
What no one disputes is that in 1991 an Aids worker, Philip Shepherd,
spent a day in the school talking to staff and then wrote a report, (of which
more later) which was sent to the Director of Education, Diana Cavanagh. In response to what he wrote a clinical
psychologist, Valerie Mellor, was commissioned in late 1991 to investigate the
reported sexual activity involving the boys at the school. Mellor's report presented in February 1992
confirmed and expanded upon the Shepherd report. It included the comment, 'It is very
difficult to believe that this behaviour had not come to the attention of at
least some members of staff.' Also
in 1991, Rodney Hilton, who lived nearby was convicted of sexually abusing boys
at the school.
Responding to a letter sent to her by the Knowl
View staff in April 1992 Diana Cavanagh is reported to have been strongly
critical of care staff. With reference
to boys aged 11 to 13 at one unit of the school being involved in homosexual
activities at the Smith Street toilets in the centre of Rochdale, she is
reported to have said, 'Those supervising the boys in the evenings appeared
either not to notice that they were missing, or not to communicate their
observations.' and, 'There is
insufficient evidence to prove culpable neglect, fraud or incompetence by any
single member of staff.'
If, as the authors tell us, Mr Digan had
been at the school since the late 1970s, this seems to be an awful lot for
anyone to be oblivious of. As for how Mr
Digan had the scales lifted from his eyes you can choose between the prosaic
versions from the MEN of 2 December 2012 and 30 November 2013, that he was
given access to the reports when he became head of care or the melodramatic
version from 'Smile for the Camera' in which he slipped into the headteacher's
office at night, 'Then, just as he was leaving, he caught sight of a file of
papers spread out on the desk under an adjustable lamp.'
I have a copy of the Shepherd report and the
details can be checked in the IoS article from 1995. This is what Mr Shepherd
had actually written in 1991:
'One boy
who is homosexual has contact with an adult outside the school. Several of the
senior boys indulge in oral sex with one another.
'Reputedly
five of the junior boys have been or are involved in 'cottaging' in and around
public toilets. Men as far away as Sheffield are believed to be aware of this
activity and travel to Rochdale to take part.
'One
eight-year-old is thought to have been involved. The police are aware of the
problem. What action has been taken is not known.
One rent
boy has been removed from the school. The suggestion that he may return soon
has angered the staff.
'Some boys have been 'forced' to have sex with
others.'
and this is what Danczuk and Baker claim it says;
'In matter of fact language, the report described
the extreme sexual abuse that young boys had been subjected to. Boys were
beaten and raped continually by men as far away as Sheffield who had travelled
to Rochdale to take part.'
No it didn't!
A few lines later they quote Mr Digan as saying, 'These
boys were sold to paedophile gangs.' Of course neither they nor Mr Digan
provide any evidence for this.
A page further on they imply that Cyril Smith's
name appeared in the Shepherd report when it did not; 'This file was
eventually made public by Digan but Cyril Smith and Harry Wild's names were not
mentioned.' This was the IoS
article in 1995.
When the authors resort to misquoting documents in
this way, presenting opinions as facts and implying that something is true when
it isn't, then it casts doubt on much of their book. It goes well beyond being
called 'inaccurate journalism'.
In 1986 Jeremy Corbyn complained to the House of
Commons about the activities of Geoffrey Dickens saying:
'The hon. Member for
Littleborough and Saddleworth chose, last Thursday, to make a statement to the
Press Association, which appeared later in The London Standard. The effect was
to make any inquiries difficult to follow, and the estate was besieged by the
media, seeking salacious gossip and stories'.
Making inquiries difficult to follow is precisely
what Danczuk and Baker do in their book. Once an accusation is made, the police
have to make inquiries. Their story about Smith and Knowl View simply
contaminates any evidence which might exist about what really happened at the
school. Anyone laying a false trail makes life even more difficult for the
police.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment