Farnell’s Danczuk Moment?

by Les May

AFTER the publication in April 2014 of the book which Matthew Baker appears to have written and Simon put his name to, Danczuk was the ‘go to’ man for all things to do with sexual abuse.  No-one bothered to check whether his stories were true or just so much hot air. Leicestershire police discussed aspects of the investigation into Greville Janner with him.  Aspects which later appeared in a national newspaper. (see Appendix)
Once he got into his stride he was ‘Mr Rent-a-quote’ for comments on the Labour leadership and when Corbyn became leader in September 2015 he had a lucrative sideline dishing the dirt in articles in the Daily Mail.  And then on the last day of the year after a few ill considered ‘tweets' it all unravelled.  From then on it was downhill all the way.  The slow slide back to the bottom of the heap had begun. In just 2 years he converted a 14,000 majority into a vote of less than 900.
The problem for politicians is that once the ball starts rolling downhill the once friendly press is happy to give it an occasional push to keep it moving.  The stories may have nothing to do with the job of being a politician, but they go to build a picture of someone who dos not deserve the voter’s trust.
Now I don’t think that Richard Farnell was entirely fairly treated at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). It appeared to me that he was treated as a hostile ‘witness’ which did not seem to be necessary if the intention was to elicit the facts.  But that being said, his claim that he knew nothing of the unsavoury events at Knowl View special school is, to say the least, implausible. But was it his Danczuk moment?   Is it enough to start the downward slide to being an electoral liability?
How long before the press notice that Knowl View wasn’t the first time that things went badly wrong on Farnell’s watch.  As Oscar Wilde put it in ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’,  ‘To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness’.
Those with long memories will recall the Middleton Ritual Satanic Abuse scandal which resulted in 21 children being taken into care and in 2006 a substantial payout by Rochdale MBC.  Northern Voices pointed out in 2016 that this occurred when Farnell was Labour Leader in an article dated 21 January, but no-one seemed to notice.  Perhaps it is time for someone to ask him what he knew about this fiasco.
http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/councillor-farnell-relaxed-about-danczuk.html 
Farnell has a choice he can ‘fall on his sword’ and go gracefully, or he can face the prospect of a less than favourable report from IICSA just before the 2018 local elections.  If he decides to stay he may face the prospect of some Labour members feeling unable to campaign whilst he is still Leader.

Appendix
25 August 2015
Chief Constable
Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters St Johns Enderby Leicester. LE19 2BX
Dear Sir,
I refer to statements made by Simon Danczuk MP in the House of Commons on 23 June 2015 and recorded in Hansard Column 214WH. I have extracted below the portion of his statement which I believe raises matters of concern about the actions of your force.
Quotation starts:
'I know the police are furious about this, and rightly so. Anyone who has heard the accusations would be similarly outraged. I have met Leicestershire police and discussed the allegations in some detail: children being violated, raped and tortured, some in the very building in which we now sit. The official charges are: 14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988; two indecent assaults between ’84 and ’88; four counts of buggery of a male under 16 between ’72 and ’87; and two counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988. My office has spoken to a number of the alleged victims and heard their stories.'
Quotation ends.
Taken at its face value this suggests that Leicestershire police discussed with a third party, who though an MP, does not represent a constituency within the Leicestershire police area, matters of a confidential nature relating to a police investigation. I draw attention to the fact that Mr Danczuk specifically used the word 'discussed' suggesting that information was passed to him by the police service rather than that he was simply questioned about information which he might hold which was relevant to the police investigation. The detailed information regarding the nature of the charges in the remainder of the statement suggests that this interpretation is correct.
Even if it is considered appropriate to discuss these matters with Mr Danczuk the question arises as to why he was apparently not instructed that these matters were confidential. Mr Danczuk's choice of words in the first two sentences of the above extract could leave the impression that by not instructing him that the matter was confidential the police service was attempting to use an extra-judicial method to bring pressure to bear upon the
Director of Public Prosecutions. I stress that I am not making such an allegation.
The apparent failure to instruct Mr Danczuk that the discussions were confidential extends to an article in the Sun newspaper of 24 June 2015 headed 'Lord Janner "Raped kids in Parliament" claims Labour MP Simon Danczuk', and in which the matters discussed with him by Leicestershire police were repeated. As Mr Danczuk had made his claims under Parliamentary privilege he gave himself, and the Sun, protection against being sued for libel. On 24 July 2015 Mr Danczuk received a payment of £10,000 from the owners of the Sun for an article he had contributed to. He declined to say which article the cash related to.
If this payment does relate to the Sun article I believe it raises further questions about the wisdom of discussing material relating to the Janner case with Mr Danczuk without instructing him that the matter was confidential.
I am arranging for a copy of this letter to be sent to the Home Office because I think the concerns raised are applicable to similar discussions between other police forces and MPs who may use parliamentary privilege to make the discussions public.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Les May