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

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

What RAP Said About Smith in 1979

by Les May

IN his evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) David Steel said:

'It is unfortunate that some sections of the media have chosen to extract certain passages of evidence and present them without the full context.

'The inquiry has a serious and sensitive job to undertake and spinning evidence to generate sensationalist headlines only serves to distract from panel's search of the truth.'

This is undoubtedly the case, but what Steel himself said seems to show a degree of confusion about what was published about Smith in 1979. In addition he claims that he found out about Smith from material in Private Eye. What he does not mention is that he was contacted by the joint editors of Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) prior to this. He also seems to have been influenced in what he said by so called ‘evidence’ which has been spun to generate sensational headlines since 2012.

Today I listened to three people voice there opinion about Steel’s action (or lack of action) on the BBC2 Politics Live programme. They clearly knew nothing about what Steel knew or did not know in 1979, but it did not stop them holding forth.

In order to clarify what Steel would have known in 1979 about Smith’s antics I have appended below the material published in the May and June 1979 editions of RAP.

‘Rochdale Alternative Press (RAP)
May 1979 (Number 78)

RAP has obtained evidence that, during the 1960’s, Cyril Smith was using his position to get lads aged 15 – 18 to undress in front of him in order that he could get them to bend over his knee while he spanked their bare bottoms or let him hold their testicles in a bizarre ‘medical inspection’.
The evidence comes from the interviews conducted by RAP over the last six months and in the form of statements made on oath before a solicitor. The allegations are not new – some were originally made as long as 15 years ago, but they were made in statements to the police during their investigation of these allegations in 1969/1970.
There is also disturbing evidence to suggest that that police investigation may not have had its proper end.
RAP decided last September to investigate the allegations in order to determine the facts in an area dominated ever since by rumour. This was prompted partly by the stance Smith had adopted in the Thorpe affair. And partly by the fact that his position as M.P., like his election campaign, was totally based on his personal character of “Smith the Man” – there was part of that man which has to date been concealed and which we feel to be sufficiently disturbing for it to be made public.
Here we present the results of our investigation:

(1) THE POLICE INVESTIGATION
The investigation, carried out by Lancashire Constabulary’s Task Force, started some three years before Cyril Smith first became Rochdale’s MP. It lasted for around 6 months.
It was stimulated by allegations made by a young Rochdale man while he was being questioned by police in connection with charges of indecent behaviour, in Risley. In the course of his examination he claimed there was, in effect, one law for the powerful and another for the poor. He alleged that Cyril Smith had done similar things but got away with it.
Cyril Smith was then Alderman, Chairman of the Education Committee, and soon to be prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the local Liberal Party which he had not long ago rejoined .
The young man concerned had been a resident of the Cambridge House Boy’s Hostel, on Castlemere Street. That hostel then became the focus of the police investigation as they interviewed not only its residents but its committee members - including Bill Harding, Harry Halstead, Alan Lovick and Ron Watson, who were asked questions about the role of the committee members in discipline and medical examinations.
These committee members, while admitting with various degrees of reluctance that they had been interviewed by the police, all denied then, as they did again to RAP, any knowledge of improper activities within the hostel. Some of the residents however had clear and, both to us and to some of the police, convincing memories.

(2) THE HOSTEL
The hostel had been set up by the Rochdale Hostel for Boys Association, a voluntary group formed late in 1960 under the joint inspiration of Probation Officer Bill Harding, its chairman, and Cyril Smith, its secretary. With the aid of Rotary Club money to guarantee its rent for the first two years, the assistance in renovations of the Round Table, and of other committee members like Alan Lovick who provided cost price furnishings, the doors of Cambridge House were opened as a hostel for working boys in February 1962.

[Clipping inserted within the main body of the article]...
“We earnestly hope that we have found for boys a home in which they can find the right moral character building influence.” Smith at the 1964 AGM of the hostel.

It had room for 20 boys, though it average less. The solid basis of its membership was a dozen lads who were apprentices with Whipp & Bourne. They had originally been employed in the firm’s Scottish works but were moved to Rochdale when that closed down. Increasingly, residents were also recruited from the ranks of those in care or from broken homes.
It closed at the end of 1965, primarily through lack of funds and, in particular, because after a lengthy debate, the council endorsed the decision of its Children’s Committee not to increase the grant it was giving to the hostel, by the additional £700 they were being asked to. Strangely, there is no mention of the hostel project in Smith’s autobiography ‘Big Cyril’ which was published in 1977.

[Clipping inserted within the main body of the article]...
“I believe there is a place for corporal punishment....there is a place in law for a good hiding.” Smith in the Rochdale Observer, 21 April 1979.

(3) THE STATEMENTS
During the investigation the police took statements from 7 or 8 of the boys who had lived at the hostel and from at least one who had not. RAP has traced 10 ex-residents and one who, though never having been at Cambridge House, made a statement to the police.
Of the 10, three have nothing but praise for Cyril Smith. The other 7 have all made allegations which fall into one or both categories:
BEATINGS
They have described to us Smith’s role in providing discipline. Two extracts from sworn statements given to us illustrate the procedure:
(1) From a man now married with 4 children and living in Rochdale, describes how, while at the hostel and aged about 16 he took a day off work from the job Smith had arranged for him. His absence from the job was reported to the hostel and he was interviewed by Smith:
“He gave me the choice between accepting his punishment and leaving the hostel. I said I would accept his punishment...He took me into the Quiet Room. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. When I had done that he hit me four or five times with his bare hands on my bare buttocks.”
(2) From a man, single, living and working in Rochdale, then aged about 15, describes how after he had been reported for a minor offence:
“Cyril Smith found out that I had taken some money. He asked me if I would accept his punishment or be dealt with by the authorities. I said I would accept his punishment. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. He trapped my hands between his legs. He hit me many times with his bare hand and I pleaded with him to stop because he was hurting me. This took place at the hostel. Afterwards he came to my bedroom and wiped by buttocks with a wet sponge.

MEDICALS
We have been told by Dr Ian McKichan, then Rochdale’s Police Doctor, who provided medical services to the hostel and now lives in Rugby that Smith was often present at the medical examinations. Some of the ex-residents we interviewed have stated on oath that they had what they took to be medical inspections from Smith himself. For example, from the sworn statement of a man who lives locally in a new house:
“After a few days in the hostel I was given a kind of medical examination by Cyril Smith. He told me to take my trousers and pants down. He held my testicles and told me to cough.”
We have had similar experiences described to us by more than one other person.

(4) OUTSIDE THE HOSTEL
Our investigation led us to someone who never was a resident of the hostel but who turned out to have also made a statement to the police. He still lives locally with his wife and family and holds a good job. He was one of the many young men Smith has helped over the years. In his case the help came about 1967, after the hostel had closed, in the form of an offer of a job at Smith’s Springs. He took it.
Increasingly, the lad’s parents – he was about 16 – turned to Smith for help in coping with his adolescent adventures. He still remembers Smith telling him that he would help him to sort himself out, but that he would do it his way. And that whenever he did something wrong, he would have his trousers taken down and receive a beating.
On three occasions, the now family man remembers, Smith took him into the front room of his parents’ house after they had reported his misbehaviour to him. On each occasion Smith endeavoured to remove his trousers and bend him over his knee, even to the extent of a wrestling match when met with resistance from the lad.

[Clipping inserted within the main body of the article]...
“Its not a very friendly gesture, publishing that, all he seems to have done is spank a few bare bottoms.” David Steel’s Press Office, 22 April 1979.

(5) Jack McCann M.P.
During the course of the police enquiry, in 1970’s early months, Smith sought help. He visited Dr McKichan in Rugby. He called at the house of a local man who had fostered one of the boys from the hostel . That lad had made a statement to the police and Smith’s visit appeared to have had the purpose of seeking ways of reducing the credibility of the statement.
He also turned to Jack McCann, the then labour M.P. for Rochdale. He had earlier turned to the same man for help in getting his M.B.E. award of 1966. We have had described to us a late night session between Smith and McCann who had been brought over to Rochdale from his home in Eccles for the purpose. The meeting ended with McCann offering offering to make representations on Smith’s behalf.
Jack McCann’s widow, Alice, remembers her husband being asked to help Smith. We know that McCann was concerned about the situation in which he found himself since, though a man of close confidence, he actually discussed it with one associate in the course of a train journey between London and Manchester. That confidant still vividly remembers the conversation and told RAP that McCann had said that he had taken the matter up with the Chief Constable.
Beyond that hint, we have not been able to find exactly what McCann did, or if anything he did had any bearing on the result. Certainly the Chief Constable concerned told RAP he has no memory of ever meeting him. But there is one disturbing discrepancy in the stands now being taken.

(6) THE D.P.P.
The police, at the conclusion of their investigation, appear to have taken the view that there was sufficient reason to warrant a court’s verdict. A file was certainly drawn up by the Officer in charge of the Task Force Team for submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
From that point the story becomes disturbingly confused over the issue of whether the file actually reached the D.P.P.
It has always been believed by those in the know that the file was indeed sent to the D.P.P. And that the D.P.P. returned it marked for no further action on the basis of insufficient evidence.
That was what the investigating team were told. That is also what associates of Smith and then the local leading political figures in the Town – who were officially informed of the proceedings – also believed. That was what Smith himself was told by the investigating officer.
An approach to the D.P.P. however failed to confirm that. On our first request for information, the D.P.P.’s press office agreed to answer the question of whether or not the file had been received by them. After making the appropriate search, we were told that they had failed to find such a file. A further approach brought the official statement from the Director: “The D.P.P. cannot trace such a case being referred to us, but cannot confirm or deny receiving it.”
The Director did confirm that, under the then applicable regulations the “Chief Office of Police shall report to the D.P.P. offences....which include indecent offences upon a number of....young persons.”
We also wrote to Sir Norman Skelhorn, the man who was the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the investigation. RAP’s letter was forwarded to him by one of his Club’s, the Athenaeum. On Wednesday 25th April we received a phone call from someone claiming to be Sir Norman, on holiday and from a coin box phone, who said that he could remember nothing at all about such a case.
RAP also interviewed Mr. Palfrey, the Chief Constable of Lancashire at the time. He agreed that such a file “should have been sent” but said “I can’t say for sure whether the file was sent or not.” He told us to approach Police HQ. Which we have done several times. Their final comment was “We decline to comment.”

[Clipping inserted within the main body of the article]...
“I believe that a politician’s private life is his own affair and should remain so unless private behaviour jeopardises his political role. I suspect that most men and women have a skeleton rattling round in their cupboard and I think it should be allowed to remain there unless it can be proved that its exposure can right some injustice done to another person.” ‘Big Cyril’ (1977) Smith’s Autobiography.

(7) SPECIAL BRANCH
The file, kept since at Preston, the HQ of Lancashire Constabulary, came to the centre of national events in February/March 1974. Then there was discussion of a possible coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The possibility, if that happened, of leading Liberals holding Ministerial posts, prompted the Special Branch to acquire a copy of the Preston file on Smith which was taken, with special security precautions, to London.

(8) CYRIL SMITH
Throughout the police enquiry Smith asserted his innocence of the allegations. He told his friends at the time that it was a case of an attempt to damage him politically. He pointed to the home backgrounds and records of some of the ex-residents of the hostel as evidence of their lack of credibility. In his interview with the police, with his solicitor present, he denied all the allegations made against him. We have no reason to believe that he would do anything other than that today. RAP wrote to him asking for an interview to discuss the serious issues raised by our investigation, but he did not reply.

(9) WHY NOW?
This is not, though it will be suggested it is, a smear campaign in the middle of an election. Our investigation started, as our records show and those we talked to can confirm, last October when the election was still thought to be a year away. When we published our last issue – which announces the date of this one – we did not know that this issue would be just a few days before an election.
The fact is that our findings compel us to publish. Rochdale is being asked to elect a man as M.P. on a purely personal basis. His election material makes but passing reference to the Liberal Party. Smith himself has consistently and consciously personalised the issue. Once we became convinced that he had, over a period of years, interspersed his undoubted good work with a clear abuse of his position for personal ends, we felt had no choice but to make it that part of what Rochdale’s electors should be asked to take into account.
It had already been reported to us, before publication, that Smith intended to issue a libel writ. That did not alter our conviction that the men we had interviewed were telling the truth. Nor our view that they should not have been left with the indelible mark of their experiences at the hands of Smith. For too long, it is they who have effectively been branded as wrongdoers.

(10) CONCLUSION
It is not RAP’s function to pronounce on guilt or innocence. We do however believe that the investigation of 1970 should have resulted in a court case. We cannot but believe, like many of the men we interviewed, that had the allegations involved a less prominent person, it would have had exactly that result.
We do find Smith guilty of the charge of hypocrisy, over his role in the Thorpe affair. At the very least he might have been expected to remain silent. He did not. We have established that Smith was a major source of the Press’s information on the Liberal Party’s affairs at the time. He was reporting, at his own initiative, the most confidential of conversations with his leader, direct to the Daily Mirror.
We accept that Smith may neither have committed or, even if the evidence gathered by the police investigation had led to prosecution, been found guilty of any criminal offence. But the practices described in the statements made to both the police and RAP must be condemned, not for any sexual content which may be read into them, but because they present a serious abuse of authority.
Private preferences are, and should remain, personal business. The use of public position for personal gratification at the cost of exploitation of others must be prevented.

There is also cause for concern in the question of whether the file in this case reached the D.P.P.’s office. RAP believes that this should be the subject of a full and impartial investigation.



Rochdale Alternative Press (RAP)
June 1979 (Number 79)

RAP’s revelations concerning Cyril Smith published in our last issue was a story in which the national press have been interested for a long time. What prevented them from publishing previously was the laws of libel – which still prevent them from publishing it now. RAP has not received a libel writ from Smith.
Once the story was out the media interest continued. Several taxis from Manchester offices of newspapers arrived at Rochdale newsagents to buy a dozen copies each. The People sent its representative, Harold Holborn, accompanied by a Rochdale Observer reporter! John Derricot of the Mail, Bill Jenkins of the Sun, Mike Nally of the Sunday Observer, Chris Bryer of Granada, Chris House the crime correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph, and the news editor of the Star have all had conversations with us about the story.
Libel of course remains the problem, as of course it has been ours. Clearly what we have said about Smith is defamatory. The only defence therefore against libel is that what we have said is true. Our London lawyer’s advice was simple: if you know it to be true, print it. We did.
The one national paper with enough courage to carry the story so far was Private Eye. It’s edition of May 9th ran a summary of the RAP story as its lead article. It repeated the allegations RAP had made and included the extracts from sworn affidavits made by the young men concerned. Private Eye has frequently received libel writs from politicians. It was not received one in this instance. ‘

Grooming Scandals & Cover-ups

 Editorial Note:   Normally we at Northern Voices are uneasy about publishing anonymous comments and accounts, because they clearly do not in the nature of things carry the level of credibility of a signed authorised opinion.  And yet, we feel obliged to give space to the views expressed below about 'voting irregularities' in Rochdale even though we have no way of authenticating the details expressed.  When the Smith case was considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the 1970s, it is said that it was decided that it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter.   Similarly in the light of current publicity about more cases of Asian grooming gangs in Huddersfield following earlier cases in Rochdale and Rotherham etc, it would seem that local authorities have been guilty of what we would describe as aspect blindness, and what others have entitled 'political correctness'.  For this reason we publish the unverified text by the anonymous author below.

******

Anonymous said...

Voting irregularities are rife in this town.  My partner who is of South East Asian extraction knows of friends who only know how they have voted when their husbands tell them ( or not as the case may be) how they filled the postal vote form in.  Criminal prosecutions would be the result anywhere else but Rochdale.  Why does this kind of behaviour go unchallenged by the authorities I wonder?

In this town there is a proactive dysfunctional culture of wilful denial of inconvenient facts - a culture that allowed monsters like Smith to go unchallenged for decades and the Grooming Scandal to be allowed, then ignored - with a collective 'blind eye' being turned yet again - with a collective cognitive dissonance by the guilty, and complicit to allow the same abysmally piss-poor services to then make warped claims that because they are no longer as criminally incompetent and negligent at delivering basic service standards that they have as a result achieved some kind of magnificent improvement as a consequence.

I suspect there is so much more to be exposed in the political cess-pit that Rochdale has become ?

**********

The Fair Sex?

By Les May

I’d like to see more MPs in parliament with the same sort of life experience as that of Heywood and Middleton MP Liz McInnes.  She’s not from a privileged background, she did not slide easily from university, to a job with a charity and then into parliament, like some women MPs I could mention.   She has had what I, and no doubt many of her constituents, think of as ‘a proper job’.

But on one point I disagree with her profoundly.  That is her continuing support for policies which in make it difficult for men accused of rape to be treated fairly and equitably.  Or if you like, her support for policies which lead to men being treated unfairly and inequitably.  By ‘fairness’ I mean something more than the legal test of ‘natural justice’, though it is increasingly the case that organisations like universities and trades unions to not adhere to the test of ‘natural justice’ when dealing with accusations against men of sexual assault.

The proximate reason for me writing this article is a piece which appeared recently in the Rochdale Observer in which Liz McInnes responded to the comments of a Manchester solicitor, Nick Freeman, who called for people who make false claims of rape to be named and shamed on a public register.

Now I think these comments by this solicitor are extremely unhelpful in the context of any rational discussion about rape.  But they would never have been made if, in rape cases, the accuser was not granted lifetime anonymity whilst the name of the person accused is made public.  What prompted them was the case of Liam Allan who was on bail for two years charged with six rapes and six sexual assaults.  When the case finally came to court it was revealed that the police had withheld evidence which would have demonstrated not only that he was not guilty of the crime he was charged with, but that no crime had been committed.

Liz McInnes’s reported comment that, ‘justice was done in the end and I don’t see any reason to change the law around anonymity’, is in my view thoughtless callousness.  At the very least this case should have prompted some reflection because in this case the ‘victim’ is Liam Allen not the young woman who made the accusations knowing them to be false.   But knowing also that the police have been instructed to believe the complainant and that she would be treated as a ‘victim’ even though her supposed assailant had never even been brought before a court.

Nor do I think she can substantiate her further comment that ‘the statistics show that the numbers of false allegations are very, very small compared with the total number of cases’.

I say this without malice.  Getting accurate figures for these things is very difficult, not least because so many women’s advocacy groups cherry pick and simply highlight the figures which support their case.

The best figures I have been able to obtain are that in 2016 convictions for rape and other sexual offences were 5,190 and 13,490 respectively.  They are taken from a BBC website report dated 10 October 2017.  Don’t bother trying to follow the link to the CPS website for the original report, you’ll get a 404 error.   The CPS seems more interested in demonstrating how efficiently it process cases than in providing a breakdown of conviction rates and attrition rates for serious crimes like rape.

What seems to be agreed is that taking these two classes of sexual offence together the conviction rate, that is the proportion of cases brought before the court which result in a conviction, is about 60%, and that for the same two classes of offence the attrition rate, that is the proportion of cases reported to the police which result in a conviction, is about 14%.  Both these figures seem to be comparable with the rates for other serious crimes.

I draw three conclusions from this. First is that juries are very willing to convict men if there is good evidence of their guilt.  Second that if the criterion used by the CPS is that a case should only go to court if there is a 50% chance of a conviction, then the CPS is getting things right.  Third that 2 out of every 5 men brought before a court and publicly accused of a sexual offence, are in fact innocent.  I suggest this is the figure which Liz McInnes should have in mind when she ponders the question of whether there is any reason to change the law around anonymity.

Whilst these figures do not support solicitor Freeman’s claim that the Liam Allen case is ‘the tip of the iceberg’ and certainly demolishes his call for a ‘name and shame’ register which would only turn reporting a potential crime to the police into little more than an exercise of Russian roulette, they do not support Liz McInnes’s claim that the Allen case does not suggest we need a rethink about the anonymity rule.

Not only is it unfair that accuser can hide behind a veil of anonymity whilst even an innocent accused cannot, there are occasions when anonymity seriously disadvantages the accused.   This happened in the Ched Evans case.

Evans was convicted of rape in 2012 and spent two and a half years in prison.

When initially questioned Evans told the police that his accuser had used specific words indicating that she was a willing participant.  His conviction was quashed in 2016 by the Court of Appeal, and a retrial was ordered.  At the retrial later in 2016 he was found not guilty.  The Court of Appeal based its judgement on the fact that new evidence had appeared.  That new evidence was that the complainant had used the identical words in a sexual encounters with two other men close to the night she had her encounter with Evans.  This made Evan’s account entirely plausible.  Had the complainant not been given anonymity this ‘new evidence’ could well have been available to the defence at the time of the original trial.

The Evans case also shows why the oft repeated call for anonymity for the accused is not the way to go, as once again the ‘new evidence’ would not have been available at the initial trial.

An unwelcome side effect of the anonymity rule is the implication that in cases where there is enough evidence to launch a prosecution, the complainant is somehow shamed simply because they believe something happened to them against their will. This cannot be right.

Even more insidious is the practice of referring to complainants as ‘victims’ at the outset and insisting that they should be believed.  Commenting on the recent collapse of the Liam Allen and Isaac Itiary cases Lord Macdonald, who was Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from 2003 to 2008, said that these were examples of two failures of public policy: “Firstly, the political rhetoric that privileges victims’ rights over defendant protections has come home to roost. Complainants should be treated with respect, but the inclination to defer to them as victims, even before a trial has determined that this is what they are, tramples over the objectivity police should bring to their investigations.”

Previously McDonald had said:

'… the worst miscarriages of justice I have seen in my career have resulted from blinkered investigations in which the police [have] believed a theory at the start of the case and then gone on to 'prove' that theory. This supposedly pro-victims' rights stance of saying we believe the victims at the outset is precisely what we don't want. We don't want the police deciding what the truth is before the investigation starts … Not everyone who tells the police that they have been a victim of crime is telling the truth, it leads to the police believing people who are telling lies.'

'The victims’ rights movement was born from the best of reasons, but it is now leading to an imbalance in the justice system that threatens basic fairness.'

It was Keir Starmer who as DPP promoted this use of the term ‘victim’ for complainants.  He has been enthusiastically followed by the present incumbent Alison Saunders.

Fortunately, as I pointed out in my NV article ‘A Great Injustice and the Rules of Evidence’ (19 November 2016), the ending of the 2015-2016 session of Parliament meant that Starmer could not do any more harm with his Private Member Victims of Crime Etc (Rights, Entitlements and Related Matters) Bill.

The reason that I consider this even more insidious than the anonymity rule is that it has been extended even further by large sections of the press in recent weeks, egged on by MPs like Harriet Harman.

Routinely any accusation of an act of vaguely sexual impropriety is immediately taken to be true.   The accuser is then referred to as a ‘victim’ or even a ‘survivor’. Harman, who really ought to know better, went so far to say, ‘I think that the absolute key to this, when I think about my own experience and think about the Harvey Weinstein thing, is we need a system of whistle-blowing, anonymous whistle-blowing’.

Frankly this kind of thing is worthy of the East German secret police, the Stasi, at its worst.  Where is the fairness in such a system?   Nor is there any real comparison to be made between Harman’s claim of being ‘propositioned’ by a tutor and some of the accusations levelled at Weinstein.

Whilst I have concentrated on the impact of what I see as a steady move towards making it more difficult for any man to defend himself in court against an accusation of rape or other serious sexual offence, such moves ultimately undermine our belief that if we find ourselves in court we will be presumed as ‘innocent until proven guilty.  That is something that should trouble us all.

N.V. Review of 'Smile for the Camera'

by Les May

Editors Note:  Les May wrote this review exclusively for our current edition of Northern Voices No.15, which was published in April of this year.   He had in 2014 also written a review on Amazon.  The interesting thing about these reviews is that, with the exception of a review by Nicholas Blincoe* in the Daily Telegraph also in 2014, they are so far as we know the only critical reviews of the book 'Smile for the Camera: The Double Life of Cyril Smith' by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker. 

Since the book by the Rochdale M.P. Simon Danczuk was publish there has been much acclaim for what Mr. Danvczuk has had to say from pundits in the media and politicians of all complexions.  The effect of Mr. Danczuk's book when it was first published by Biteback publishers was massive and almost unbelievable given its patently poor quality in research terms.  John Walker who was the former co-editor of the Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP), which in May 1979 first exposed the ultra vires conduct of Cyril Smith at Cambridge House, described the prose of Danczuk and Baker as 'flowery flannel'.    

I must declare an interest here because the idea to produce a biography of Cyril Smith was mine which I disclosed to my friend John Walker and he then suggested we get Simon Danczuk to write an introduction and to help us find a publisher.  I am an anarchist and ought to have logically exercise prudence whe deal with any party politician, but John has been a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party and has already published one book, I therefore left it to him to negotiate with Mr.Danczuk.  Neither of us had had any previous dealings with Simon Danczuk, but it quickly became apparent that Simon Danczuk was interested in making money out of the Cyril Smith book and this appalled John Walker, when he later at my house in Castleton, Rochdale, told me of it how Simon would mimic Cyril's gate rolling across the screen for a docu-drama.  In January 2013, as we ate our paella a la valenciana at my house following John's meeting with Simon and Matthew Baker, we struggled to come to terms Simon Danczuk's idea of turning the whole child abuse scandal into a melodrama for television.  Up to that time John had met with Danczuk about six times in London, on at least one time in the House of Commons Bar.  John told me that during their meeting, that Matthew Baker had seemed to be mainly interested in trying to squeeze information out of him, and that judging by Karen’s body language there seemed to be some animosity between Karen Burke (Danczuk’s wife) and Matthew Baker.

The visit to Danczuk’s office had not been successful, and sometime later in London, John Walker was approached by Mr. Baker and asked if he still intended to produce a book on Cyril Smith, to which he said that he wasn’t.  Then we waited to see how they would handle the material, especially with regard to the fact that when he was at Cambridge House he was a prominent member of the Labour Party in Rochdale, and that when in the later 1960s Cyril had been investigated by the police Jack McCann the then M.P. for Rochdale had intervened on his behalf with the DPP.  There is also even speculation that perhaps the then Labour Home Secretary, James Callaghan, got involved, as Mr. McCann was close to him.

Brian Bamford (October 2015)

*  Nicholas Blincoe is an English author, critic and screenwriter.  He is the author of six novels, Acid Casuals (1995), Jello Salad (1997), Manchester Slingback (1998), The Dope Priest (1999), White Mice (2002), Burning Paris (2004).  Blincoe was born in Rochdale, Lancashire in 1965. After briefly studying art at Middlesex Polytechnic he attended the University of Warwick where he studied Philosophy, gaining a PhD in 1993. The thesis was entitled Depression and Economics. The thesis explored the relationship between political sciences and economic theories, with particular reference to the philosophy of Jacques Derrida.

___________________________________________________

'Reviewing Cyril Smith's Lucrative Smile' by Les May (First published in print in Northern Voices No.15):

A half a century ago an overweight Labour councillor in his mid thirties took it upon himself to act as disciplinarian and medical inspector at a hostel for young men.  The man's name was Cyril Smith and the hostel was Cambridge House in Rochdale.  The consequences of this decision took some sixteen years to emerge in the form of a detailed and well researched article in Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP), one of those non-mainstream newspapers which emerged in the 1970s.

In the 1979 pre-election issue of RAP the story of Cyril's penchant for looking at young men's genitals and spanking their bare backsides was revealed to anyone in Rochdale who could afford a few new pence for the paper. Cyril threatened to sue, then quietly backed down, Private Eye and New Statesman ran pieces, and the rest of the press ignored it.  At the election, Cyril, who by now had defected to the Liberal party, was returned to Parliament.

I bought 'Smile for the Camera' by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker having been taken in by the hype surrounding it.  So confidently did Mr Danczuk present his story of 'Cyril Smith the paedophile' at book readings, at press conferences and to any media outlet that would listen, that I assumed it was filled with solid evidence that Cyril continued and extended his sordid activities after the closure of Cambridge House in the mid 1960s. It isn't.

Instead what we have are a series of assertions and opinions by the authors, gossip, second and third hand stories which originated in pub bars, supposedly verbatim accounts of conversations which took place thirty odd years ago, accounts which we are led to believe are the authentic voices of men who had unpleasant encounters with Cyril yet which have a strange sameness about them, few definite dates and a garbled chronology, the same story apparently told more than once, misquotation of documents, a seeming absence of proper methodology and no indication of how many men they interviewed who claimed to have been abused by Cyril.

Feeling somewhat peeved at having wasted my money on such dross, I twice challenged the authors in a local newspaper about the apparent lack of methodology and how many men had been interviewed before this book was written, who claimed to have been abused by Cyril after the closure of Cambridge House.  Having received no answer on either occasion I wrote to Mr Danczuk on 9 October 2014 asking him the same question.  Again he declined to answer.  On 24 October at one of his book readings he was asked the same question.  Still Mr Danczuk  refused to answer.  Why the coyness?   Perhaps the answer would be embarrassingly small.

The question of 'how many' comes to mind repeatedly, because some of the stories about Cyril's activities appear to be recycled.  For example the same story about one resident fleeing the hostel after being beaten by Cyril appears on pages 51 and 93, leaving the impression that they are separate incidents.  Another example, complete with garbled chronology, appears on pages 50 and 109.

We now know Lancashire Police investigated Smith's activities at Cambridge House in 1969 and that in March 1970 a file was submitted to the DPP containing complaints from eight young people about indecent assaults by him.  The GMP update containing this information does not detail any other group of complainants. But similar stories about 'police files' appear in the book on pages 45, 47 and 51, again leaving the impression that they refer to separate complaints.  But do they?

Some of the strangest passages in the book appear in the three chapters headed 'Silent Voices'. Ostensibly these are accounts in their own words of the experiences of three men at the hands of Cyril Smith.

Here are a few samples ostensibly from two men assaulted in the 1960s;

It was said that Leonardo da Vinci would gaze at the stains on walls and imagine vivid battles and landscapes.  That day cheap exuberant motifs gave way to a swarm of angry locusts bringing a load of plague and pestilence. p87

The all-nighters at the Twisted Wheel club in Manchester were legendary.  Hard rhythm and blues, rare soul and American imports:  it was the best music you'd hear anywhere in the north of England. p119

You may wonder whether, if you were reporting having your backside wacked by a bully when you were a teenager half a century ago, you would include passages like these in your account.   

It doesn't stop there.  Contrast this description by the first of these men describing the assault by Smith;

Above his heavy breathing I could smell his rancid body odour.  It was like cabbage boiled in vinegar. As his heavy breathing slowed, a continuous low sound rose in his chest like a purr of contentment. p92 and a few lines later

His humming was louder now, broken every now and then by strange squeals of pleasure. p92

with an account which does not appear in the book but was sent to me in June 2014 by a man who was also assaulted at Cambridge House;

During the time I was a resident, (from late ‘61/early ‘62 to late ‘63/possibly early ‘64), on two occasions I was subjected to Smith’s bogus ‘medicals’.  During one of these I was asked to take down my trousers and underpants, turn round with my back to him, bend over, then hold my buttocks apart, while he ‘inspected’ me.  On another I had to, again, lower my trousers and underpants and Smith started poking and prodding and I was then told to cough while Smith held my genitals.

These two men may even have met each other at Cambridge House and are describing similar events. But whilst the account in the book is dramatic, 'white knuckle' or even vaguely pornographic, the second is hesitant and matter of fact.  

Now I do not doubt the two men at the centre of the accounts given in the book were spanked by Smith just as they say they were.  But I don't think that we are reading their own unvarnished words on the subject. One of them says;

Cyril couldn't have abused all these boys on his own.  He had a team of people behind him.  They were all in on it. p131

How convenient for the authors that he volunteered his opinion in this way!  How nicely
it 'corroborates' the opinion of another of their informants;

Digan, like others, is of the view they (paedophile gangs that is) were encouraged and protected by Cyril Smith.  p115.

We'll meet Mr Digan later.  But for the moment we'll note that these are opinions not facts.

The third 'Silent Voice' is perhaps the strangest.  Essentially it is a 'kiss and tell story', though it is not presented that way. 

In 1979 a young man of 16 meets Cyril and becomes involved in Liberal politics.  The RAP article spilling the beans on Cyril's antics at Cambridge House appears just before the election, but he is happy to join Cyril's election campaign and soon becomes 'a close member of his team'.  Payback time comes when Cyril starts to grope him.  So what does he do, walk away immediately?   No!   He continues to work with Cyril until 1982.  Now he feels a sense of shame for letting it happen, but to his great credit refuses to let his life be taken over by hate.  

This is a sad story.  Cyril does not emerge as a very nice man, even in the dirty world of party politics.  But not being very nice isn't a crime.  At a personal level he is exploitative and clearly takes advantage of this young man.  Yet, like the two earlier stories, it's not paedophilia.

So why do the authors use it to treat us to passages like this? 

In the years that followed, Cyril repeatedly used me to satisfy his perverse cravings.  He treated me like a sex object. p153

As we read this would our feelings be the same if it was about a fifty plus Celia Smith with her 'toy boy'? Are we being subtly invited to a bit of 'queer bashing'?

If you find such an idea offensive how about this?

Cyril, he said, liked them young with tight sphincter muscles. When their sphincter became looser as they got older, he would ditch them. p210

'I can't forget the graphic detail,' Foulston tells me, 'I was disgusted.' p210

Was the intention to leave the reader 'disgusted'?

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.  Again there is no chronology.

According to the authors Mr Digan started work at the school in the late 1970s p109.  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.' p109

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 was 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 a 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.' p112

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.' p112
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 and Harry Wild's names appeared; when in the Shepherd report when they 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.  Being named as Sunday Times politics book of the year and being listed as one of The Telegraph's best politics books to read in 2014, does not make it a reliable document if you want to know about Cyril Smith. My dad used to say, 'You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.'
I hope he was right!

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.

Northern Voices, MI5 & The Daily Telegraph

Can the Coppers Crack it?

IN Northern Voices No.8 we asked 'Was Cyril Smith Set Up?'  Back then we questioned if there was something called the 'Clockwork Orange' operation to discredit certain senior politicians, as Paul Foot had published a book that made this allegation, in the 1990s, entitled 'Who Framed Colin Wallace'.  In this book he suggested that in the 1970s Cyril was one of a number of figures including Jeremy Thorpe, Edward Heath and Harold Wilson, who some elements in the intellegence services had sought to discredit.  The plan was to manipulate the British political system, and place a more right-wing authoritarian government in power.  At least that was the theory. 

The thing that is now holding up any serious investigation into the allegations against Cyril Smith is the disappearance of the dossier of sexual abuse, that was held by the Lancashire Police at their special branch headquarters in Preston.  This week Tony Robinson, who worked for Lancashire police in the 1970s, told the Daily Telegraph he saw a police file that was 'thick' with allegations from lads who claimed they had been molested by Cyril.  This file, he said, had been looked at by the then Director of Public Prosecutions.  Commenting on the dossier Mr. Robinson said:  'I looked through Sir Cyril's file which was kept in a safe in our office.  It was thick full of statements from young boys alleging abuse.  It had been prepared for prosecution (and) written across the top of it were the words:  "No further action, not in the public interest DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions)".' 

A bit after that Mr. Robinson said:  'I was called by an MI5 officer.  They asked me if I had the file on Mr. Cyril Smith, and said:  "Please have this sent down to London".'  That, it seems, was at a time when Smith was the Liberal Party Chief Whip under his leader Jeremy Thorpe, and the Liberals were useful to the Labour Party in forming a government of the centre/ left.  It has been suggested that, at that time, there were elements in MI5 who sought to undermine the centre/ left in British politics including the Tory leader Edward Heath, and whose aim was to bring into power a more authoritarian government of the right (see Paul Foot's 'Who Framed Colin Wallace').  All this has been considered in Northern Voices No.8, our argument then was expressed thus: 
'Clockwork Orange, in the 1970s, was an attack on civil libertarians by elements who wanted a more authoritarian regime in Britain.  They got their wish with Margaret Thatcher.'

This week's report in the Daily Telegraph would now seem to lend some credibility to this view.  The worrying thing now is can the police get their hands on the dossier apparently held by MI5?