by Les MayIT's deja vu all over again, again!
So after a night in a police cell and a second one in a Civil Guard holding cell, Simon Danczuk left court in Orihuela after state prosecutors asked for the case to be shelved seemingly because ex-wife Karen declined to ratify at court what she’d told police. The court in question specialised in violence against women so the fact that he is now a free man does not in itself mean that he is entirely without a stain on his character. Presumably the Spanish police would not have acted in the way they did without good reason.
This looks awfully like a re-run of what happened in Alicante in August 2008. On that occasion Mr Danczuk called allegations that a row between them escalated into violence ‘vicious mischief making’, adding that they were ‘totally untrue and absolute nonsense’. A detailed account of what is said to have happened was given on 12 July last year by a Mail on Sunday (MoS ) journalist, David Rose. It contains the interesting line that 'a spokesman for Mr Danczuk said that the claims of violence were drivel, fed by Trotskyist loons’. There's the 'T' word again!
At the time I suggested that the then acting leader Harriet Harman should suspend Mr Danczuk temporarily until a new investigation into what happened between the couple in Spain and subsequently, which took into account both the statements made by Karen Danczuk's family to the MoS and the copies of texts sent by Karen to her family.
Strictly speaking there never was an investigation into what happened in Spain in 2008. The original investigation was into the behaviour of seven members of Rochdale Labour party in signing a letter to the Rochdale Observer asking for an investigation into what had happened in Spain.
Given Mr Danczuk's behaviour before he was suspended from the Labour party in December 2015 after the first 'sexting' incident, the irony is that the charges were brought under rule 2A.8 which reads: 'No member of the party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NCC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NCC is grossly detrimental to the party.'
Seemingly writing articles for the Tory press attacking the Labour leader does not fall foul of this rule.
For me the most interesting question is whether the seemingly dysfunctional family unit that is the Danczuk's will have social workers crawling all over their lives. Will they be subjected to 'case conferences' and 'core group meetings'? Will their children find themselves on the 'at risk' register? Will they find themselves in court explaining why their children should not be placed in foster care? Or are these just things we reserve for the poor and the 'underclass' who find it difficult to defend themselves?
Sixty years ago in his 'bible' of social democracy, The Future of Socialism, Tony Crossland made it clear that an equal society is not just about the distribution of income or wealth, it was also about how equally power was distributed in a society. It's a lesson we have either forgotten or never learned.