Cyril Smith and Faisal Rana

by Les May

NOT two names you would ever expect to see together, but as I was reminded when I read the somewhat garbled story by Jennifer Williams in the Saturday edition of the Rochdale Observer, there are some remarkable similarities.

Let’s forget the speculation and recap what we actually know. Smith indecently assaulted young men at the Cambridge House hostel in the 1960s.  Had he not been guilty of this he would have sued Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) for the article in the May 1979 edition.  Rana voted twice in the May 2018 local government election. When found out he admitted it. Two guilty men; two sets of blind eyes being turned.

What are the similarities?   For a start neither of these men ever stood in the dock and answered for their crimes, though the reasons for this appear very different. Another similarity is the way that people who could, and should, have taken non-judicial actions against these two guilty men have excused their reasons for not doing so.

David Steel who was told of these accusations against Smith by the RAP editors, David Bartlett and John Walker, has excused his inaction by saying;

‘These allegations all related to a period some years before he was even an MP and before he was even a member of the party, therefore it did not seem to me that I had any position in the matter at all. He accepted that the story was correct. Obviously I disapproved, but as far as I was concerned it was past history.’

How remarkably similar this is to the response I received when I raised the matter of Rana voting twice with the RMBC monitoring officer.  I was told that Rana’s criminal behaviour had taken place before he became a Councillor, hence no action could be taken.  Just as party leader Steel was able to avoid taking any action against Smith, these seems to have been enough to have allowed party leader Alan Brett to avoid taking action against Rana.

In fact the excuse from the monitoring officer was nonsense.  Rana’s crime was committed on polling day 3 May 2018 and his term of office runs from that day until the day before the next poll is held.  I feel justified in using the term ‘excuse’ here because when I later asked for clarification about Rana’s failure to declare his interests within the stipulated time period the officer who dealt with this during an extensive correspondence squirmed and did everything possible to avoid having to admit that Rana had failed to comply with the rules.

So why did neither of these men appear in the dock?  We know that in the case of Smith the police pursued a rigorous investigation, that the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and that no action was taken against Smith.  No evidence has yet been produced that this was a ‘cover up’ and the most likely explanation is that even though a number of young men has made similar accusations against Smith as the law stood at the time this could not be taken as corroboration that he committed the crimes he was accused of.  This seems absurd to us now and the law has since been changed.

In the case of Rana things are much less clear. We don’t know whether the decision to allow him off the hook with only a caution was taken by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) without referring the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or whether it was a decision made by the CPS.   If the decision was made by GMP alone then it seems to me to be a significant error of judgement on someone’s part.

Voter fraud strikes at the heart of our democracy and whether it be GMP, the CPA, a council officer or a party leader no one should do anything which appears to excuse or condone it.  Smith is dead, Steel is yesterday’s man and Rana is still a councillor. Which do you think we should be most concerned about?

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2019/03/what-rap-said-about-smith-in-1979.html

*************

Baffling Ballot Box Probe

Editorial Note:  IN May 2017, Northern Voice produced the piece of investigative journalism below in which we tried to shed light on the shady goings on in the Spotland and Falinge ward.  That was at a time when mysteriously a marked ballot register disappeared without adequate explanation.  Since then the voting irregularities of the new Councillor Faisal Rana has further damaged the image of Rochdale.

*******

In Rochdale, a lack of curiosity at the top?

Written up by Les May based on research by Carl Faulkner and Brian Bamford

THERESA May’s ostensible reason for calling a General Election is that her slender majority of 12 was an obstacle to passing the legislation needed to cope with the fallout from the UK leaving the EU.  The cynical amongst you might wonder if it was not also an opportunity to distract attention from the fact that criminal charges are being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against at least 30 individuals in the Conservative party.  Some have been MPs in the 2015 parliament and contributing to Theresa’s slim majority, some will be candidates in this election and could be re-elected.   Electoral fraud isn’t just something that happens in other countries it happens here too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud 

It’s not just the Tories who have played fast and loose with the rules on election expenditure.  In recent years Labour and the LibDems have both been fined by the Electoral Commission for breaking election expense rules.  What makes the Tory case different is that the CPS is investigating whether there is evidence that candidates and their agents may be guilty of filing false spending returns. If they are both could be charged with fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-runswick/election-expenses_b_16146174.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-fraud-prosecutions-cps-election-campaign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

This type of fraud is easy to detect once you are alerted to what is happening.   There’s always a ‘paper trail’.  In fact a year ago as part of its ‘Check a Tory’ campaign the Daily Mirror put the election expenses of Tory MPs on line and invited readers to scrutinise them.  What’s much harder to detect is when a small group, with or without the tacit agreement of local party bosses, exploit weaknesses in the system to rig the ballot.  Having a system which ‘on paper’ is foolproof, is fallible if the people who are supposed to implement it fall down on the job.

In August 2015, the government put out a press release announcing that, ‘Sir Eric Pickles, the Government’s Anti-Corruption Champion’, was to review the question of electoral fraud.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-to-examine-electoral-fraud

A year later it was published.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-publishes-report-into-tackling-electoral-fraud 

So far so good.  But as I noted above any system is only as good as the people who implement it. This is what the Electoral Commission have to say about those people:

‘Local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Returning Officers (ROs) manage elections, and are uniquely placed to detect and prevent electoral fraud.  They should have robust plans in place to identify any suspicious behaviour and should work with the police to investigate any potential electoral fraud.’  (my emphasis)

But what actually happens when something ‘suspicious’ does occur.   Just how easy is it to get anyone to take notice?  Things seem to have changed in Rochdale since 2011 when ex-council leader Colin Lambert was outspoken about what needed to be done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13192008 

Over a year ago Northern Voices was sent the extremely well documented correspondence between a candidate in the Spotland and Falinge ward at last years Rochdale Council elections, and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud.  It runs to some 22 pages.

At that election a 'marked register' went missing.   It should have been handed to the Returning Officer at the point at which the ballot box and other official documents were delivered by the Presiding Officer at the close of poll. It was either accidentally lost or deliberately stolen.  There can be no reason why one of these alternative explanations should be favoured over the other.   If we are to take the fight against electoral fraud seriously the ‘precautionary principle’ suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it should be assumed that it was stolen, the police should be informed to that effect and a full investigation launched.   It did not happen.

What is clear from this correspondence is that, in spite of Pickles bluster in The Telegraph:
'We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections', when a complaint is made, no one wants to shoulder the responsibility for making sure that a proper investigation is launched.  It seems that Pickles was right about one thing, ‘the authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud.’

Equally worrying is that the complainant, Carl Faulkner, who stood as an independent candidate, claims that he was not informed of the loss of the missing register as he should have been and that he was told ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register'.  Northern Voices made an effort to contact the other candidates to find out if and when they were told about the missing register.

Mick Coates, the Green candidate, was quite clear that he had not been officially informed that the mark register was missing.

Enquires with the Lib-Dems suggested that this was also the case with their candidate Matthew Allen, and Ian Duckworth, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, was unable to confirm that their candidate, Steven Scholes, had been informed either.

Wendy Cox the Labour candidate did not answer the question directly but said:  
'Thank you for your email. I have passed this to the electoral officer.'  

Quite why she felt she had to ask the electoral officer whether she had been informed, is unclear at this point.  A week later she was asked if there had been any response and replied suggesting that NV should contact the electoral officer directly.  On the 10th April the joint editor of NV wrote to the RMBC Chief Executive, Steve Rumbelow for clarification.

(His reply to the NV joint editor, Brian Bamford, is printed below together with the response of the original complainant, Carl Faulkner.  Copies of the full correspondence between the complainant and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud can be made available by e-mail from Northern Voices.  It shows clearly that it was the complainant who initiated the contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police not RMBC.)

The possibility that the register was in fact stolen has been excluded from consideration a priori, even though at the time an exhaustive and unsuccessful search was made at the polling station, and even of people’s cars.   The consequence of deciding that a register was ‘definitely lost’ not ‘possibly stolen’ is that there is a convenient ‘fall guy’ in the form of whoever was in charge of that polling station. They are deemed to have ‘lost’ it and their reputation must suffer as a consequence.

In all this the one thing that is very clear is that whoever told the complainant that ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register' was telling a porky pie. And these are the people we have to trust when it comes to combating electoral fraud.  Robust plans to identify potential electoral fraud?   I think not.

*******

Dear Mr Bamford
Thank you for your recent enquiry.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.
To clarify, the marked register is the copy of the electoral register used in polling stations. It serves as the record of who has voted in the election, and it is kept for a year after the election. The marked register does not indicate who electors voted for, nor does it contain ballot paper numbers. 

Legislation provides that a variety of parties are eligible to access copies of the marked register after an election. Anyone can inspect the marked register, but only certain people can purchase a copy. 

This includes individual candidates and political party representatives.  Usually, copies are requested by and provided to party representatives who would then disseminate the information to their colleagues, including candidates. 

All those who requested copies of the marked registers were informed that a register had not been returned following the close of poll and the steps that had been taken in an attempt to locate it, both immediately after the close of poll and in the days following the election. 

In addition, the Council has been in contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police on the matter who were satisfied with the steps that had been taken and the measures put in place to prevent any future issues of a similar nature. 

Yours Sincerely
Steve Rumbelow

And here are Mr Faulkner’s observations:
1) Without him actually stating it, it is clear that people were only going to be informed if and when a copy of the register was requested. That is not the same as informing all candidates as a matter of course. It reiterates my position that there was a concerted attempt to conceal the incident by keeping quiet about it.

2) I feel he is attempting to downplay the importance of the marked register, by portraying it as nothing more than a post-election tool for political parties /candidates / interested persons.  This is not the case - it’s primary purpose is as an anti-fraud document - but one which can be utilised by political parties etc.

3) All contact with the police, Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission was initiated by me. They contacted RMBC - not the other way round as his response could be taken to mean.

4) What are the ‘steps’ put in place that did not exist before? The issue is not about how, who, why or exactly when the register went missing but that no candidates nor the police were informed at the time or during the following 21 days.

********

Cyril Smith Saga: More Old News?

by Les May

THE ‘revelation’ that in January 1970 Cyril Smith approached the police to find out if he was going to be charged following the investigation into allegations that he had indecently assaulted young men at Cambridge House hostel in the 1960s is ‘old news'.  It has been in the public domain for about three years and came to light as a result of a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS).
He told police that he was concerned that if he were charged it would prevent him from standing as a candidate in the forthcoming general election.  I see nothing sinister in this.  It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
On this occasion, acting on legal advice, he declined to make a formal statement.  But at the end of February 1970 he returned with a prepared statement which did not address the allegations directly.  It read as follows:
‘I am not prepared to make a statement at this stage as to the allegations made by the eight boys, particulars of which you have supplied to me.  I am, however, prepared to say this.  I was active in the running and administration of the hostel. [Redacted]  The object was to help the under-privileged and deprived boys of over school leaving age, many of whom had social, domestic, health and other problems and to get them settled continuous and productive employment.  In respect of some of the boys, we were faced with difficult problems of discipline arising from general misconduct, [redacted] and work shyness.  At all times, we were in loco parentis to the boys as part of an agreement signed by each boy on his entering the hostel.  I produce a copy of the agreement.  The warden and her husband lived on the premises and the “Quiet Room”, which had no lock on the door, was some three feet away from their living quarters.  Members of the committee were wont to call at the hostel at all times unheralded, and [redacted] would call at least three or four times per week to talk to the boys, sometimes in my presence, but usually in my absence, and they would discuss personal or other problems with the boys.  I should like to point out that two of the boys resident in the hostel were elected to represent the boys and attended the monthly committee meetings.
'I never heard a single complaint as to any conduct of mine being made by any boy or any committee member or anybody else, and I am quite astounded at these present complaints made so long after the alleged events.  I am in the position to call very many witnesses not only as to my general integrity, which has never heretofore been questioned, but also as to the unfailing help and support that I have always been known to give to my fellow townsfolk in general, and the youth of the town in particular. In fact, the greater part of my life has been dedicated to these ends.  Personally, I would just like to point out that the mere existence of these allegations, if they become known, may be damaging to my public and private career.  But, at the same time, I wish to state most emphatically that I have never behaved in any indecent way towards any of these boys, but have done my best to help them at a difficult stage in their lives.’
The redacted words appear to refer to the names of people who some might see as ‘guilty by association’ or accusations against residents of Cambridge House.
It seems clear that Smith’s defence would have relied upon his ‘good standing’ in the town the delay in the allegations being made.  Having seen copies of the affidavits signed in 1979 by some of the men assaulted I have no doubt that he did do some things that most people would consider improper. It should however be pointed out that the 1979 RAP (Rochdale Alternative Paper) article stressed that his behaviour amounted to abuse of power and did not seek to emphasise abuse of a sexual nature.
What does seem to be new is the fact that when the editors of RAP, David Bartlett and John Walker, asked the police about allegations against Cyril, the police lied in their reply.
Whether the police were approached by any of the mainstream press after the RAP article was published we do not know. If they were and gave the same answer, it would explain why the allegations in the RAP article were not taken up by the mainstream press.
One can construct any number of ‘conspiracy theories’ around the fact that the police lied to Bartlet and Walker in 1979.  But none of these exonerate the print and broadcast media. Had the media followed the lead given by RAP, Smith would have been finished as a politician, something he acknowledges in his statement to the police in February 1970.  Had the voters of Rochdale taken note of the RAP article they would not have voted for him in the May 1979 election.  The story of Smith and Cambridge House was ‘hidden in plain sight’ for 33 years until an editor of RAP, John Walker, and an editor of Northern Voices (NV), Brian Bamford, in July 2012 tracked down two of the men assaulted at Cambridge House. Simon Danczuk only became aware of this after Paul Waugh, who ran a political blog, contacted NV in the autumn of 2012 and passed on the story to him.
To my mind the lessons to be drawn from this are twofold.  The first is the importance of the protecting and widening the Freedom of Information Act.  Not least making the supplier of the information responsible for its accuracy and for fulfilling not just the letter of the law, but its spirit also.
The second is to recognise the importance of independent news sources like RAP and NV.  Along with the rest of the press my local paper declined to print the RAP story in 1979.  At that time it was independent and had its own team of reporters.  Now it is part of a larger group so that the same material, by the same authors, appears in the local and regional press. In other words the press is much less diverse than it was then.  Without the original RAP story and the more recent efforts of Messrs Walker and Bamford the story of Smith and Cambridge House would never have been told.

Rochdale 'Three Girls' Sex Groomer's Sentences

Last week, in response to reports that all but two of the men sentenced for involvement in the Rochdale gang grooming in 2012, have now been freed, Maggie Oliver, the former detective constable who was portrayed by Lesley Sharp in the BBC drama 'Three Girls', was reported in the Rochdale Observer thus:  'Maggie Oliver insisted the seven [men] who have been released should have been charged with rape - rather than sexual activity with a child or trafficking offences - which attracts a longer sentence.'

Decisions on charging alleged offenders is I understand the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS], not the police.  Below is the list of offenders, their charges, and convictions.  It will be seen that some of the offenders. like Hamil Safi and Abdul Aziz, were actually charged with rape but found not guilty on that count and guilty of a lesser offence.  Is the former police officer saying that the jury verdict was wrong in those cases?:

Hamid Safi: Illegal immigrant Hamid Safi, of Kensington Street, Rochdale, was found not guilty of two counts of rape but convicted of trafficking and conspiracy. (Afgan)

Mohammed Amin: Taxi driver Mohammed Amin, of Falinge Road, Rochdale, was found guilty of sex assaults and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Abdul Qayyum: Married father-of-two Abdul Qayyum, of Ramsay Street, Rochdale, was convicted of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Adil Khan: Taxi driver Adil Khan, of Oswald Street, Rochdale, was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Mohammed Sajid: Cash-and-carry worker Mohammed Sajid, of Jephys Street, Rochdale, was found guilty of rape, trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Abdul Rauf: Taxi driver and Muslim preacher Abdul Rauf, of Darley Road, Rochdale, was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Abdul Aziz: Taxi driver Abdul Aziz, of Armstrong Hurst Close, Rochdale, was cleared of two counts of rape but was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Kabeer Hassan: Kabeer Hassan, 25, of Lacrosse Avenue, Oldham, was convicted of rape and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Shabir Ahmed: The evil predator who led the Rochdale child sex grooming gang - Shabir Ahmed - is locked up in Leeds prison and fighting efforts to deport him back to his native Pakistan. He was convicted of two counts of rape, one sex assault, trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.

Election Expenses in Greater Manchester

ON the 17th March 2017, the MEN reported a probe into 2015 election expenses - with the police handing files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and involving three Greater Manchester MPs, according to the Manchester Evening News [MEN].
Detectives are now investigating whether three Conservative MPs breached strict spending limits at the last General Election.
It has recently been revealed a file has been handed to the CPS following an issue over spending on a ‘battle bus’ tour of marginal constituencies.
Complaints have been made that the costs - of the buses to transport activists and put them up in hotels - should have been recorded as counting towards individual candidates’ spending limits, rather than to the Conservatives’ national expenses return.
Bury North MP David Nuttall - who denies any wrongdoing - was initially confirmed to be involved in the GMP probe, with details of his election expenses handed to the CPS.  An additional problem for Mr. Nuttall and the constituents in Bury North, is that this week Karen Danczu told the Rochdale Observer that she fancied standing as the Labour candidate in Bury North.  Ms. Danczuk is the ex-wife of the disgraced Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, who has had expenses scandals of his own, and she was a undistinguished local councilor in Rochdale for a while.
The M.E.N. has now learned Hazel Grove MP William Wragg and Cheadle MP Mary Robinson have also been investigated - and that their cases will be reviewed by prosecutors.
Battle buses visited both constituencies in the run up to the election.
Former Stockport councillor Mr Wragg snatched Hazel Grove from the Lib Dems in 2015.
He told the M.E.N: 'I was assured, at the time and now, that the battle bus was a national expense and my election agent was instructed by Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) to treat it as such.
'Accordingly it was not declared locally, but was left for the party to declare nationally.'

Operation Clifton Further Discredits Danczuk

by Les May

WHEN Simon Danczuk, the MP for Rochdale's book ‘Smile for the Camera’ was published in April 2014 it was applauded by almost every reviewer.  But there was one slightly sceptical note struck by Nicholas Blincoe who reviewed the book for the Daily Telegraph.  Whilst almost everyone else seemed to accept at face value everything that Danczuk and his aide Baker had to say about Cyril Smith’s activities, Mr. Blincoe was more cautious in what he said:  
'If it emerges that Smith, who died in 2010, raped young boys at Knowl View, the failure to act earlier will seem unforgivable. But the guilt will be shared.  Everyone in Rochdale read the RAP story.  I pored over it as a 13-year-old. There was never any doubt over Smith’s guilt. So why did no one do anything?' and 'Investigations into Knowl View by the police and council have been extended to discover Smith’s role, if any, in the abuse. We will soon know if Rochdale’s sympathy for Smith was a terrible mistake.'  

‘Smith’s guilt’ here refers to the story which had appeared in the Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) in 1979, about him carrying out fake medical examinations and spanking young men at Cambridge House Hostel in the early 1960s.  The reason ‘There was never any doubt...’ is that when the story appeared Smith huffed and puffed and blustered, but did not sue.

In the event Blincoe’s prediction of May 2014 that ‘We will soon know...’ proved to be wildly optimistic.  It has taken not one, but three, investigations to get at the truth about what Baker wrote and Danczuk put his name to.  
Essentially their credibility rests on three claims: 
1)  That Smith was protected by, amongst others, the security services, and was effectively immune from prosecution, 
2)  That Knowl View special school was a ‘sweetshop for paedophiles’ and Smith took full advantage of it,
3)  That there was a ‘cover up’ by officers of Rochdale Council about what was happening in the school. 
Now we have known since July 2015 that the first of these claims are false.  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-33716982

This is what I wrote about this incident on the Northern Voices blog in September 2015: 
On pages 221 and 222 of his book is a typical Danczuk story about Smith.  In recounting this story he forgot the collateral damage being caused to the reputation of the Northamptonshire Police:   
'His car had been pulled over on the motorway and officers had found a box of child porn in his boot.  The police were naturally disgusted and wanted to press charges.  But then a phone call was made from London and he was released  without charge.  Senior officers had threatened the officers involved with dismissal if he was not released immediately.  The mood was tense and sullen as officers stood back while Cyril breezily walked past them to freedom.  All the staff who knew about it were threatened with the Official Secrets Act if they discussed the matter any further.  Once again Cyril walked out of the police station knowing he was a protected man.'  

A totally convincing story, but totally untrue.    

How do we know?    

Because detectives have interviewed Danczuk, two former chief constables, about 60 police staff, a journalist who has written extensively about Smith, and several members of the public.   No witness has been found who saw Smith in custody or was involved in his arrest, no reports of the alleged incident have been uncovered and no witnesses have been found from Special Branch.   A manual trawl of its archives was undertaken by Special Branch and the Crown Prosecution Service searched its archives for relevant information.   Both found nothing. 

So far as I know this is the only one of Danczuk's stories that has been subject to scrutiny.  I leave it to your imagination to figure out how much it has cost to find out the truth about it just because he and Baker could not be bothered to check it out before committing it to print. http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-humbug-of-simon-danczuk.html 

Their second claim about paedophiles at Knowl View school was demolished in September 2016 when Operation Jaguar was closed due to the absence of substantive evidence.  
This is what the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) had to say: 
‘Between April 2014 and April 2015, 13 files with multiple allegations were submitted by GMP to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to 27 suspects and 16 victims (I think they mean complainants), of both physical and sexual offences.  In 2016 the CPS communicated their decision on the final one of the 13 files that was still under review.  No further action will be taken in relation to this allegation.  In May 2016 a further file was submitted to the CPS and in August 2016 the CPS advised there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution.’
 
Danczuk did not like this one little bit and responded with:  
'I believe that there has been a catalogue of failings by GMP during the investigation of these crimes.   A failure to prosecute will leave child sexual abuse victims devastated that the people who changed their lives forever will not be brought to justice.  This statement from GMP announcing that they have not been able to prosecute any more abusers will, I am sure, mean that the perpetrators of these horrific and evil crimes will sleep more happily in their beds tonight.’   

In other words he ‘knows’ the people accused are guilty, and if the evidence cannot be found it is due to police failings.   http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/old-news-from-knowl-view.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/danczuk-having-realistic-chance-of.html

Whilst Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd did not see fit to defend the good name and professionalism of Greater Manchester Police, the local Police Federation chairman Inspector Ian Hanson, did saying:  
 '(f)rom his comments I would assume Mr Danczuk is in possession of very specific information that backs up his comments (and) if that is the case then he should refer that information to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaint's Commission) himself immediately.'   

In a Facebook post, Ian Hanson said a statement released by Mr Danczuk on Thursday was 'totally lacking in detail or substance'.   

Inspector Hanson said of Simon Danczuk: 
'.... I will publicly call him out to deliver the firm evidence that he bases his criticism of GMP on to my office by 12 noon on Monday - and I will personally deliver it to the IPCC.' http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/danczuk-given-ultimation-to-cough-up-by.html

As for their claim of a ‘cover up’ this is implied rather than made explicit.  But anyone reading page 113 of their book could not be left in any doubt of what is being suggested, especially as they refer to one council officer by name.  Certainly the media took the view that the police investigation into whether there had been a ‘cover up’ by Rochdale Council had come about because of the book. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/rochdale-mp-welcomes-knowl-view-7501342

Assistant Chief Constable Ian Wiggett from GMP, said:  
'Following the publication of MP Simon Danczuk's book 'Smile for the Camera’, GMP conducted an assessment of the allegations contained within that book. As a result of the assessment, GMP decided that a criminal investigation was required. 
'This also followed consultation with Rochdale Council and the QC conducting the independent inquiry on their behalf. The council asked Neil Garnham QC to suspend his independent review and he has agreed to do so.
'The GMP investigation will now seek to identify whether any offences have been committed in the way that previous reports of abuse were handled or allegedly covered up.' http://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2014-07-24/investigation-into-alleged-knowl-view-abuse-cover-up/

After more than two and a half years and at a cost of nearly three quarters of a million pounds the Greater Manchester Police investigation Operation Clifton concluded that there was no ‘cover up’ of what was happening at Knowl View.  In other words Danczuk and Baker once again got it wrong.   Now at this point I must declare an interest.  In May 2015 I was interviewed at Rochdale Police Station for some two hours by two officers who were part of this operation.  I handed over copies of all the relevant documents I had amassed during my own investigation and signed statements detailing the information I had provided verbally.  At the end of the interview I was asked to express a view as to whether I believed there had been a ‘cover up’. I said no. So far as I was concerned I was very impressed by the thoroughness of the investigation.   

Danczuk sees things differently.  He has described Operation Clifton as a 'shambles' and he said: 'This must be the most bizarre and unprofessional police investigation I’ve seen in my time in public office.  The police have been effectively investigating themselves.  The way it has been handled by the police warrants investigation.'

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/no-evidence-child-abuse-cover-school-linked-cyril-smith/

What he does not say is that the investigation was set up examine whether there had been a ‘cover up’ by Rochdale Council and that he was wrong to suggest that there had.
This is curious because in April 2014 he had dismissed the existing enquiry into claims of a ‘cover up’ set up by Rochdale Council in January 2014 as a ‘bogus review’ that lacked the necessary independence.  It was this enquiry which was superceded by Operation Clifton.  

He said at the time:  
'It's well known that Rochdale council are knee-deep in litigation over claims of historical physical and sexual abuse and their so-called independent review is nothing more than a defence of the council.  
'I don't know why they're calling it an independent review because the council commissioned it, they've set the terms of reference and the council leader is busy calling round people connected to Knowl View asking them to come and speak to him.
'There's nothing independent about it and I think it's wrong that the council should be investigating serious allegations of abuse that they had responsibility for preventing.' https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/28/cyril-smith-abuse-police-alleged-rochdale-cover-up  

Incidentally, the council leader in question was Colin Lambert who went on to deliver the Labour party a stunning victory at the next election but was then replaced by someone closer to Mr Danczuk.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/98147/former-danczuk-spin-doctor-matt-baker-accused-of-vile-attack-and-smear-campaign

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/simon-danczuk-and-rochdale-dirty-tricks.html

Operation Clifton cost almost £750,000, Operation Jaguar cost in the region of £500,000, the cost of the investigation by Northamptonshire Police is unknown but we can tentatively place it in the tens of thousands of pounds, if not more.  Taken together the sum is in the region of one and a quarter million pounds.  Even though Danczuk was the proximate factor which led to each of them, he rejects the findings of all of them. 

Allowing Danczuk to remain in a position where anyone might be inclined to take the slightest notice of his views on Cyril Smith, Knowl View and indeed the whole question of sexual abuse of children, is rapidly becoming an expensive luxury the country can ill afford.  But he won’t go until he is pushed and the people to do that pushing are the members of Rochdale Labour party or, if they still won’t do it, Rochdale’s councillors from the other parties need to kick up a fuss and not be cowed by attacks from Danczuk’s cronies.

Rochdale will never climb out of the mire so long as it has Danczuk as its MP.  Blaming the police when they don’t come up with the findings you think they should is lacking in judgement.  Doing it three times is the action of a fool.  

Tony Lloyd PCC: Is there a conflict of interest?

by Les May

WHEN, following the Greater Manchester Police investigation into allegations of widespread sexual abuse at Knowl View special school, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify bringing a prosecution against anyone, Rochdale’s very own ‘loose cannon’, MP Simon Danczuk, fired off one of his usual ill considered broadsides saying ‘I believe that there has been a catalogue of failings by Greater Manchester Police during the investigation of these crimes.'  He went on to call for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC) to investigate the handling of the inquiry.

This attack on the police service did not go down well with the Greater Manchester Police Federation and led to its chairman Chief Inspector Ian Hanson calling upon Mr Danczuk to ‘put up or shut up’.  Danczuk of course did not have any firm evidence to back up his claims of abuse and unable to ‘put up’ he has had to ‘shut up’.

Given the seriousness both of the initial allegations and Danczuk’s claim that the inability of the CPS to bring a prosecution resulted from GMP failings, one might have expected that the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Tony Lloyd, would have issued a statement to reassure the public that Operation Jaguar had been conducted properly or, if he agreed with Danczuk, that he was going to refer the matter to the IPCC.

If you were expecting this you would be disappointed.

On 11 November I wrote to Tony Lloyd asking ‘Could we have a single and unambiguous public statement from you either that you repudiate Mr Danczuk's assertions and that you consider that the GMP investigation was thorough and carried out to the highest standards or that you agree with Mr Danczuk's assessment of the investigation and believe that GMP failed in its responsibility to carry out a thorough investigation into these allegations.’

Having received an acknowledgement of my e-mail, but no response, I wrote again on 18 November.  Today, 24 November, I have still had no response from Mr Lloyd.

Quite why Tony Lloyd has chosen to bury his head in the sand in this way and hope that this little local difficulty will go away, I do not know.  The cynical amongst you might think that it is something to do with the fact that Lloyd was once a Labour MP and Danczuk, though suspended from the Labour party, still seems to think there is chance that he will be readmitted.  So it looks like its ‘the old pals act’.  The irony of Danczuk being ‘protected’ in this way will not be lost upon those of us who remember the unsubstantiated claims in his book that Cyril Smith was ‘protected’ by the security services.

By failing to repudiate Danczuk’s claim of police ‘failings’ Lloyd gives credence both to the initial allegations and to the notion that GMP have not done their job properly.  But there is another aspect of this which is important and should not be overlooked.

Police and Crime Commissioner is an elected office.  Those who hold it can be expected to behave in an even handed and impartial manner.  Even giving the appearance of acting in acting in a way that puts party allegiance before public duty, will bring the whole system of elected mayors and PCCs into disrepute.  It’s time for Tony Lloyd to ‘put up’ or ‘stand down’.  I for one have no faith in Tony Lloyd either as PCC or acting mayor.  And I don’t think I’m alone.

Tonight, Danczuk in the Lion's Den?

THE 'calling out' of Simon Danczuk by Chief Inspector Ian Hanson with it's implication that it is time for him to 'put up or shut up' is long overdue.  But it should not have been left for a serving police officer to do it.

It should have been done a long time ago by the reviewers of his book ‘Smile for the Camera’ who failed to notice the garbled chronology, the same stories being recounted two or even three times, the absence of any clear methodology, the second or third hand accounts being passed of as ‘evidence’ and the ‘flowery flannel’ which is used in the chapters which are supposed to be the authentic voices of the men who were indecently assaulted by Cyril Smith at Cambridge House.

It should have been done by the journalists who even today are still writing that the book ‘detailed’ allegations against Smith and Knowl View school.  Anyone who actually takes the time to read the book is struck by the grandiose claims yet complete lack of detail to back them up.

It should have been done by the Home Office Select Committee who asked Danczuk to give evidence in the summer of 2014.  In the preceding weeks Danczuk trailed that he was going to be questioned about his book.  A week or so before the meeting this changed to ‘he would name names if he was asked’. In the event the Committee did not question Danczuk about the book but allowed him to change the subject to the so called ‘Dicken’s dossier’.

As a result the press began to put the spotlight on Leon Brittan and Danczuk called for ‘an over-arching inquiry to investigate all allegations of historic abuse’.   http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/politicians-paedophile-ring-simon-danczuk-mp-calls-ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-help-uncover-1454929.  Well he got it didn’t he!  It’s on its fourth chairman, is likely to cost more than the £100 millions originally predicted, is unlikely to report until at least 2023 and no-one seems to know what to do with it.  Well done Simon!

Even after Northants police investigated Danczuk's claim that Cyril Smith was found with a boot load of child pornography, taken into custody and subsequently released by the force without charge and found it to be entirely bogus, the media have continued to treat his other claims as entirely credible.  Instead of looking more closely at these claims journalists have regaled us with lurid stories about his private life.

On page 112 of his book Danczuk says: ‘Boys were beaten and raped continually by men as far away as Sheffield who had travelled to Rochdale to take part.'  and a few lines later he has his ‘witness’ say 'These boys were sold to paedophile gangs.'

These claims were not based upon interviews with men who told him this had happened to them. They were based upon what had appeared in a 1991 report sent to Rochdale Education and Social Service departments which said nothing of the sort and a statement attributed to his ‘witness’.  In Danczuk’s own words on page 109 we read:  '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.'  This was in 1994, when he read the 1991 report.

Any reputable journalist could have asked Rochdale MBC for a copy of this report and checked Danczuk’s claims against the facts.  No doubt the police did just that during Operation Jaguar.  I’d like to have been a fly on the wall when they asked him about his claims in the book!  We do know that the police did interview the ‘witness’ and presumably asked whether he made the statement about boys being ‘sold to paedophile gangs’ attributed to him by Danczuk.

I have discussed this and many other reasons for being sceptical about the book at http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/nv-review-of-smile-for-camera.html and at http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/our-long-running-crique-of-smile-for.html .

But let’s put aside my scepticism and give Danczuk the benefit of the doubt here. Let’s take his claim at face value. Let’s put the spotlight on what he did when he was approached by men claiming to have been sexually assaulted at Knowl View school.

Now we know the law firm Slater and Gordon were not backward in coming forward as soon as Danczuk’s book was published as can be seen at http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2014/04/allegations-of-abuse-against-cyril-smith-victims-seek-answers/ .  What’s not clear is whether they were interested in helping the police investigate the claims in the book or just touting for business.

When an MP is informed of a crime having been committed his or her duty is the same as that of any other citizen; to encourage the complainant to speak to the police immediately.  I have been told, but cannot independently verify, that this was the policy of the late Jim Dobbin MP in cases where allegations of sexual abuse were reported to him.

There should be no conflict of interest such as might arise if a book was contemplated.  There should no prior discussion of the details of the complaint as this serves only to contaminate the evidence making it more difficult for the police to get at the truth.  The same problems will arise if the police have to conduct interviews with people who have already been interviewed for a TV programme. Too close involvement with the complainant, before the CPS have decided whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, would not be the action of a responsible MP.

After the decision of the CPS that there was insufficient evidence to initiate  criminal proceedings against anyone about what had clearly been some unsavoury happenings at Knowl View, a period of silence from Mr Danczuk would have been welcome.  The major effect of his interventions in the investigation of abuse has been both negative and very expensive to the public purse.  

If tonight’s meeting ends with Mr Danczuk’s credibility severely dented then he has only himself to blame.  In my first review of Danczuk’s book I wrote:

‘The writing style adopted is to let the narrative drive the evidence not the evidence drive the narrative.’ https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer- reviews /R3A7XZP51EW0A6/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1849548757  

Police investigations have in the words of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northampton to be ‘evidence led’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-33716982

John Gummer’s comment in January 2015:

 ‘Anybody who doesn’t have real evidence should recognise that it is a wicked thing to do to make allegations about anybody, even if you don’t like their politics.’  could have been tailor made for Danczuk.  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/23/lord-brittan-child-abuse-allegations-wicked

Reviewers, journalists and politicians may be taken in by a forceful and confident narrative.  The police require evidence. And tonight that could prove to be Mr Danczuk’s undoing.

Danczuk given ultimation to cough-up by police

RESPONDING to a mauling from Inspector Ian Hanson in the  Manchester Evening News last Thursday, over what the Inspector called 'pathetic GMP bashing', Simon Danczuk the independent MP for Rochdale said on his web-site that he stood by his criticisms and added:
'Everyone knows that child abuse took place on a frightening scale at Knowl View.  We've seen
shocking reports documenting this and heard heartbreaking testimony from people who attended the school, including that from Father Michael Seed, who described what happened there as "beyond horror".'
The problem is that Danczuk's claim 'everyone knows' what took place at Knowl View is not true.  One reason is that Rochdale Council has never published the reports.  A second is that because of people like Danczuk the whole matter has been kicked into the long grass of national over-arching
inquiries.
What is known from the 1991 Phil Shepherd report is that Mr. Shepherd, who was a Council HIV specialist, is that there was some inappropriate behavior od a sexual nature between the lads at Knowl View.  This probably involved some bullying by the older lads against the younger ones.
What is required is a standard of evidence that will pass muster with the Crown Prosecution Service for presentation in an English Court.  Inspector Hanson reasonably requests that '(f)rom his comments I would assume Mr Danczuk is in possession of very specific information that
backs up his comments (and) if that is the case then he should refer that information to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaint's Commission) himself immediately.'
In a Facebook post, Ian Hanson said a statement released by Mr Danczuk on Thursday was 'totally lacking in detail or substance'.  
And Inspector Hanson said of Simon Danczuk: 
'.... I will publicly call him out to deliver the firm evidence that he bases his criticism of GMP
on to my office by 12 noon on Monday - and I will personally deliver it to the IPCC.'
The clock is now ticking in more ways than one for Mr. Danczuk, who has so far failed to establish his case about Knowl View.

******

Danczuk & '...a realistic chance of prosecution'

by Les May

UNDER the headline ‘MP slams police “failings” as abuse inquiry closes’ a week ago the Rochdale Observer reported the statement from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and Simon Danzuk’s comments regarding an investigation into allegations of abuse at Knowl View school which has resulted in just one person being charged with offences.

This is what GMP had to say ‘Between April 2014 and April 2015, 13 files with multiple allegations were submitted by GMP to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to 27 suspects and 16 victims (I think they mean complainants), of both physical and sexual offences. In 2016 the CPS communicated their decision on the final one of the 13 files that was still under review. No further action will be taken in relation to this allegation.  In May 2016 a further file was submitted to the CPS and in August 2016 the CPS advised there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution.’  (my emphasis)

And this is Danczuk’s response: ‘I believe that there has been a catalogue of failings by GMP during the investigation of these crimes.  A failure to prosecute will leave child sexual abuse victims devastated that the people who changed their lives forever will not be brought to justice.  This statement from GMP announcing that they have not been able to prosecute any more abusers will, I am sure, mean that the perpetrators of these horrific and evil crimes will sleep more happily in their beds tonight.’

In other words he ‘knows’ the people accused are guilty and if the evidence cannot be found it is due to police failings.

Five days later it was the turn of the CPS to make a statement regarding an allegation that Mr. Danczuk raped his wife:
‘It has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.’  (my emphasis)

And Danczuk’s response:
‘I am grateful for the decision made by the CPS and relieved that the investigation has now come to an end.’

No suggestion here of a catalogue of police failings. No suggestion here that rapists will sleep more happily in their beds.  No suggestion here that someone has not been brought to justice.  No suggestion here that the accused ‘got away with it’.

That’s what makes Mr Danczuk such a lovable character:  his complete indifference to what a humbug he is.

I leave it to Northern Voices readers to ponder the significance, if any, of the slight difference in wording used by the CPS in their two statements.

Danczuk Rape: 'Insufficient Evidence' say CPS

SIMON DANCZUK, the MP for Rochdale, who has been facing a rape allegation dating back to 2006 will not face any further action, prosecutors have said.

Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk was questioned by Lancashire Police over the allegation on the 4th, January.
But the Crown Prosecution Service said no further action should be taken because of 'insufficient evidence'.
Mr Danczuk said he was 'relieved' the case against him had been dropped and described the investigation as an 'immensely stressful period'

'I expect Labour Party to lift my suspension'

The now independent MP had been suspended from the Labour party a month before the rape allegation emerged, when he admitted sending inappropriate text messages to a teenage girl.

The 49-year-old voluntarily attended a police station by appointment when he was interviewed over the rape claim.
He said in a statement: 'I am grateful for the decision made by the CPS and I am relieved that the investigation has now come to an end.
'Even though I maintained my innocence throughout, this has been an immensely stressful period for me and my family.
'I now expect the Labour Party to conclude their investigation into these matters and lift my suspension as soon as possible.'

'Decision Fully Explained'

In a statement, the CPS said:
'Following receipt of a file from Lancashire Police... the evidence was considered by a specialist prosecutor in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors.
'It has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
'The complainant has been informed and we have written to her to fully explain our decision.'
Lancashire Police said it 'entirely respected' the decision of the CPS, which it had 'worked closely with' throughout the investigation.
'While these allegations were made against a public figure, we have been committed throughout to investigating this matter in the same professional and victim-focussed way that we would all such allegations,' it said.
The force said it 'remained committed to investigating allegations of this nature, no matter how long ago or what the role, position and status of the alleged offender.'
Labour said the MP Simon Danczuk 'remains suspended from the party'.

Failure to Prosecute Cyril Smith

Posted on July 29, 2014 by davidhencke

MY  Exaro colleagues Nick Fielding and Tim Wood deserve a big commendation for doggedly pursuing the Crown prosecution Service to force them to release a damning report revealing how the authorities missed their opportunity to prosecute  paedophile MP Cyril Smith while he was alive.
After using the Freedom of Information Act the CPS has finally  a year later released a police report showing the Rochdale authorities knew what Sir Cyril was up to – but  the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute,.
The police superintendent in charge of the investigation in 1970 wrote;
'It seems impossible to excuse his conduct. Over a considerable period of time, whilst sheltering beneath a veneer of respectability, he has used his unique position to indulge in a sordid series of indecent episodes with young boys towards whom he had a special responsibility.'
No action was taken, and the paedophile MP was free to continue sexually and physically abusing boys for many more years. The full report is on the Exaro website.
One can only say if they had acted a lot of people would have been spared suffering such predatory sordid practices and could have gone on to have had fulfilling lives and enjoyed the innocence of the rest of their childhood. The authorities have a lot to answer.