Myth-busting!

by Les May

ANONYMITY until and unless charged for those suspected of sexual crimes has returned to the public agenda with the launching of a parliamentary petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/247912

Such a change was recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/20/suspects-should-stay-anonymous-until-charged-mps-say

Why this was never acted upon and it has been left to people who have experienced significant personal distress and loss of income because they have been named as being investigated for sexual offences, I do not know.  One possible reason is the myth propagated by some prominent feminists and their acolytes in the media that without the police being allowed to ‘trawl for evidence’, victims as they would call them, complainants to the rest of us, would not come forward.  They would have us believe that this period of pre-charge publicity is essential in securing convictions. This is not true.

Under the changes advocated by the group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (FAIR) the restriction on naming a suspect would cease once charges had been brought.  Three of the highest profile sexual abuse cases of recent years were those of Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford.  I looked at the time which elapsed between each of them being charged and the trial date, and the number of time they appeared in court including the trial date.

Harris was charged in August 2013, went to trial eight months later in May 2014 and appeared in court 3 times;  Hall was arrested in December 2012, went to trial four months later in April 2013 and appeared in court 3 times; Clifford was charged in December 2012, went to trial fifteen months later in March 2014 and appeared in court 4 times.  In other words there was plenty of time for each of them to be repeatedly named in the press after charging and before trial. Significantly the publicity generated by the trial resulted in Hall facing further charges in July 2013 and Harris also faced further charges.

Having seen some of the responses given by some women journalists I am inclined to wonder if they actually realise how limited are the aims of the supporters of FAIR.  There is no demand here that persons being alleged to have committed sexual offences should not be named, only that they should not be named until charged with a specific offence, other than in exceptional circumstances.

The journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown insists that pre-charge publicity is vital if complainants are to come forward.  But when she received in May 2012 a letter alleging that Stuart Hall had committed such an offence she did not feel this so strongly that she publicised the fact; she gave the letter to the police.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/cliff-richard-bbc-reputation-damage-victims-opinion/

Seven months later Hall was charged after a police investigation. Now it may be that Yasmin was just being a good citizen and doing what you or I would do. Alternatively it may be that she realised that the allegation just might be false and that if she publicised it Hall might sue for defamation.

Seemingly repeating what Harriet Harman has said Alibhai-Brown says,

‘FAIR campaigners should focus instead on reckless police officers who bypass strict guidance on when and whether names of suspects should be made public.  According to the rules, identification should be withheld until the person is charged, except when there is some basis for believing there is a pattern of criminal activity.’

The underlined section would cover the Worboys case which is routinely trotted out as an example of why anonymity should not be granted before charges are brought.

You might wonder, as I do, how the ‘strict guidance’ differs materially from what those who support the FAIR campaign are asking for. This seems to have escaped Yasmin and Harriet.

In October 2017 Harriet said, ‘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’. So no anonymity there Harriet? How did this woman get to be Solicitor-General and caretaker leader of the Labour party?

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2017/10/half-baked-harriet.html

(Note that the link embedded in the above is dead.)

The journalist Melanie Phillips is on record as saying ‘More secrecy in our courts is not the answer’.  Again she seems to have misunderstood the aims of FAIR.  Once someone has been charged with a specific offence it would be permissible to name them.  There is no secrecy involved.   Anyone being questioned or charged would have access to legal representation.  Again no secrecy.

The evidence seems to point to the fact that the publicity surrounding the charging and trial of those alleged to have carried out crimes of a sexual nature is sufficient to encourage other complainants to come forward.  Hall and Harris both faced further charges after their first trial as more complainants contacted the police.   Worboys too has faced further charges as up to 100 complainants have come forward since his trial and conviction in 2008.   We clearly don’t need people to be ‘hung out like like fly paper’ (in the words of Paul Gamboccini) to convince complainants to come forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys#Later_developments

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/20/john-worboys-admits-drugging-four-more-women

In the UK we tend to think our institutions and ways of doing things are the envy of the world. The Brexit saga has somewhat dented this optimistic view.   But this is what the picture of the English legal system looks like to an Irish Supreme Court judge.  It is not a very flattering picture.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/hardiman-questions-methods-of-uk-sex-claim-inquiries-1.2533054

A House of Lords Library Briefing prepared in advance of the second reading of the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill [HL] can be found by following the link below and going to the bottom of the page.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0025

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

Anonymity before charge in sexual offences

by Les May

ONE of the reasons I write for the Northern Voices blog is that it does not have ‘a party line’.  For people who think that viewpoints they object to should not be published, this is a difficult concept to understand.

But anyone who has been a reader for some time or has looked at historical articles will recognise that certain themes are revisited regularly. One of these is the treatment of people who are accused of ‘sex crimes’ but who are never charged.

Much of the problem is encapsulated in:

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-great-injustice-rules-of-evidence.html

The following articles give much of the background to this story.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2015/08/justice-parliamentary-privilege-fair.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2016/03/danczuk-fairy-stories-operation-midland.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2016/03/harvey-proctor-goddard-inquiry-long.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2016/03/harvey-proctor-says-some-should-resign.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2016/11/harvey-proctors-reply-to-hogan-howe.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2016/11/police-apology-to-harvey-proctor.html

If after reading some or all of these pieces you feel that the present law which allows the name of persons accused of sex crimes to be released by the police BEFORE they are arrested or charged and hence become subject to what amounts to ‘trial by media’, then please go to the website below;

https://www.falselyaccusedindividuals.org/

Or go direct to;

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/247912

Briefly this is what supporters of the petition are trying to bring about

Anonymity before charge in relation to sexual offences.

Changing the language in criminal proceedings from “victims” to “complainants.”

Support for families of those accused matching to the assistance given to complainants.

Examination of the problems associated with solicitors recruiting complainants (working with the police) to bring class actions.

Note that in 2016 the Slater and Gordon website was still trawling for ‘victims’ seemingly based upon an acceptance that Simon Danczuk’s book about Cyril Smith was factually correct. By this time it was known that some parts of it were wholly untrue and that Danczuk had never been able to produce any evidence to substantiate his other accusations. The link is no longer active.

***********

Half Bricks and Abuse of MPs

by Les May

HARRIET Harman has been at it again.  In last Saturday’s Times she was reported to have said that some MPs had changed their stance, presumably on Brexit, because of threats and abuse they had received.   But as is often the case with Harriet the story she is telling is a bit lacking in detail. Or to put it another way we have only Harriet’s say so for it.

As I pointed out recently, Luciana Berger has been repeatedly verbally abused and physically threatened, but the people doing it are not connected with the Labour party.  It’s not good enough for her to say that she believes that the abuse she received after the incident with the mural in 2018 came from ‘left wing individuals’.  Without some firm evidence I am not willing to believe claims of this kind.

This is a re-run of what we saw in July 2016 when The Guardian ran a story about a brick being thrown through the window of Angela Eagle’s constituency office after she declared her intention to challenge Corbyn for the Labour leadership.

According to the paper, ‘Eagle called on Corbyn to rein in his supporters, saying attacks such as the vandalising of her office were “being done in his name, and he needs to get control of the people who are supporting him and make certain that this behaviour stops and stops now.  It is bullying.  It has absolutely no place in politics in the UK and it needs to end”.'

What’s interesting about the Berger and Eagle cases is the lazy assumption that it is supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who were responsible and that he should somehow or other ‘control’ them. I’m a supporter of Corbyn, but if I write something to which you take exception, take it up with me, don’t try to blame Corbyn.

If you make lazy assumptions like this and are not meticulous in finding out the facts before rushing into print it’s easy to give the impression that Labour is a hotbed of bullying and anti-semitism.  Just because they print it does not mean we have to believe it. 

********* 

Half Baked Harriet

by Les May

FROM 1978 until 1982 Harriet Harman was the legal officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), which later took the name Liberty. From 2001 to 2005 she was Solicitor General for England and Wales, the second highest-ranking member of the Supreme Court after the Attorney-General.  So you might think that she would have some respect for the due process of law.
But judging by Harriet’s recent comment, ‘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’, one might begin to doubt it.
Once you introduce the term ‘whistle-blowing’ you imply some kind of immunity.  Coupled with anonymity it’s a recipe for ruining the lives of innocent men with no possibility of redress.  The kindest thing you can say about it is that it’s a half baked idea and would not have been out of place in the armoury of the East German Stasi.
If you think someone is breaking the law tell the police.  That protects both you and the person being accused. If the accusation has substance the police will investigate and prosecute.  If the accusation is malicious the police will prosecute you.  That is how it should be.
You can see the rest of Harriet’s comments at:
http://www.careappointments.co.uk/care-news/england/item/42707-whistle-blowing-hotlines-could-help-women-report-abuse-harriet-harman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

Income and Wealth. It’s a Carve Up

by Les May

THERE are estimated to be about 50 million adults, i.e. persons aged 18 or over, in the UK.   Based upon a sample 13,000 people the Financial Conduct Authority has identified a half of all adults, 25 million people, as potentially vulnerable to a change in circumstances.  About 13 million adults are considered to be just ‘surviving’ and at high risk of falling into financial difficulties. A similar number have been overdrawn in the past year and about 3 million have used an unauthorised overdraft.  For about the same number of adults expensive ‘pay day loans’ are the only way to make ends meet.  Seven million homeowners say they would struggle to pay if their mortgage rose by £100 a month.  A half of people who rent say they would struggle if their rent rose by less than £100 a month.

This is the bleak picture which emerges when one looks at the balance between income and expenditure.  A report by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has shown a similarly bleak picture with regard to the distribution of wealth in this country.

A quarter of adults have less than a £1000 in savings and one in eight adults have no cash savings whatsoever.  The wealthiest 10% of households own 45% of the country’s wealth and the least wealthy 50% own just 9%.  In cash equivalent terms that’s an average of £1,320,000 owned by each of the wealthiest 10% and an average of £3,200 by the bottom 50%. So much for the Tory vision of a ‘property owning democracy’ and of wealth ‘cascading down the generations’.

The picture all these numbers paint is that the UK is a country of vast inequality.  But if you are reeling at the onslaught of the numbers from these two reports don’t worry, you are unlikely to see much said about them in the press, even by those columnists and who like to style themselves a being ‘of the left’.  And of course some Labour politicians have far too much to worry about to bother their pretty little heads about something so mundane as inequality.

In the past ten days my paper has contained something about Harvey Weinstein on nine of them. Even the Radio Times got in on the act with a story about how an actress I had never heard of had been asked to audition in a bikini. Shock horror! There was me thinking that these women were all shrinking violets who shunned publicity.

Now I don’t doubt that there are men in the film business who think that ‘get your kit off’ is a chat up line. But if it offends you there is always the option of walking away.  And if think that will damage your career, then it’s decision time; career or virtue.  Yes it’s about power, but as Shakespeare didn’t quite put it, ‘Caesar would not be a wolf if the Romans were not sheep’.  As I said, it’s decision time ladies.

When I read stories like this the question I ask myself is ‘am I bovered’. The answer is ‘No!’.  Why should I concern myself with the goings on of a privileged few when I live in a country where 10% of the population each have 400 times the individual wealth of more than half of the rest of us?  Or when 3 million people have to take out ‘pay day loans’ at outrageous interest rates because they haven’t got a few hundred pounds in savings when a minor crisis arises.  What ‘power’ do these people have? What power has someone on a zero hours contract?

Yet the outrage is all about the dodgy goings on in Hollywood.  It’s certainly not about inequality. How many actresses have been propositioned in the US and UK I don’t know, but I can say with some certainty it won’t be in the millions.

Why is it that the Left is so unwilling to show its outrage at the inequity of British society?  Why is it that Harriet Harman, one time Deputy Leader of the Labour party, can seriously think that the biggest problem faced by society is that there aren’t any ‘whistle blowing hotlines’, so that women can complain about the Harvey Weinsteins of this world?  And just to remind you; Harman is the woman who urged Labour MPs not to oppose a Tory bill to cut benefits.

I’m still waiting for an answer to the question I posed in a recent NV article.

‘Why is it that people, and not just young people with their demands for ‘safe spaces’ and the like, cannot resist sniffing out and condemning anything they think smells of racism, sexism or homophobia, yet don’t show the same enthusiasm for combatting the rise in vast inequalities in both income and in wealth, the growth of zero hours contracts, the receding possibility that they will be able to live a dignified and not poverty filled old age, the demonisation of the poor as work shy scroungers, the lack of social housing and the increasing proportion of household income that is going to a new rentier class?’

I’m not looking to Harriet for an answer or to any of those columnists who style themselves as ‘of the Left’.

Scottish Labour Leader Resigns

SPECULATION over the departure of Kezia Dugdale, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party is rife throughout the British media.  Some are suggesting that she jumped before she was pushed, having previously criticised Jeremy Corbyn. Others suggest it is for personal reasons, which is what she says in her long letter of resignation.
Meanwhile,Harriet Harman has already called on Jeremy Corbyn to appoint a female replacement for Kezia Dugdale amid claims the Labour leader has a problem with women.
There are other difficulties and constitutionally the Scottish Labour party is registered with the Electoral Commission as an Accounting Unit (AU) of the UK Labour party, and is therefore not a registered political party under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. 
Consequently when Johann Lamont resigned as the Scottish Labour Party leader after the referendum in 2014, she angrily suggested that London persisted in treating Scotland 'like a branch office'.
Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian today:
'Scottish Labour membership has increased in the Corbyn period, but not by the phenomenal degree it has elsewhere in the UK. The scope for a Momentum-style surge in Scotland is limited. The left is a crowded marketplace in Scotland, with competition from the SNP but also the wider yes movement, including the Radical Independence Campaign, to say nothing of a Scottish Green party that can claim more MSPs than the Lib Dems.'
Only last weekend the Sunday Herald newspaper in Scotland devoted two pages last weekend to speculating that Momentum were keen to get rid of Dugdale, along with Brian Roy, the Scottish party secretary, and, indeed, Iain McNicol, the UK general secretary – to make way for Corbyn’s true believers. The Herald quoted extensively from the upcoming edition of the Scottish Left Review, which backs the UK leader and seems to think elements of Scottish Labour are holding back the red Corbyn tide.
In a recent issue of the Scottish Left Review (issue 100) Carolyn Leckie in an article titled 'INDEPENDENCE IS STILL A GAME CHANGER' has written:
'In 2017, radical and progressive ideas are more popular in Scotland than for many decades.  Yet the left is more diffuse and fragmented than ever before.  There are radical leftists in the Scottish Green Party, RISE, the SSP, the Labour Party, the Communist Party and in groups like Common Weal and Women for Independence.  And, there are more socialists in and around the SNP than in all of these organisations combined.'
While there is voter fatigue in Scotland it seems the independence debate informs almost every aspect of Scottish political elections.

Bitter Battle Inside Unite Union

UNITE the Union achieved a huge turnout of branches with nominations in the election for the union’s general secretary – the largest number ever, with close to 1,500 branches.
The Unite acting general secretary Gail Cartmail said today:  'It is very welcome that so many Unite branches and members have taken a full part in the nominating process for our elections for general secretary and executive council, the greatest democratic procedure in the labour movement.'
Almost 1,500 branches of Unite, Britain and Ireland’s biggest trade union, have made nominations in the election for the union’s general secretary – the largest number ever.
Len McCluskey, the union’s current general secretary, received 1,185 branch nominations, representing 559,000 Unite members.
Gerard Coyne, Unite’s West Midlands regional secretary, received 187 branch nominations, representing 98,000 Unite members.
Ian Allinson, a popular shop-floor worker at Fujitsu in Manchester and former member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), received 76 branch nominations, representing 37,000 Unite members.
The election for general secretary of Unite threatens to be bitter, and last week The Guardian reported that McCluskey as head of Unite gave Gerald Coyne a 'final written warning' for speaking at an event held by Labour for the 'Common Good', a group founded by Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt, two MPs who declined to join Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow Labour cabinet.
Coyne was invited to the event in January 2016 by the MP for Birmingham Erdington, Jack Dromey, and spoke alongside other union leaders including John Park, assistant general secretary at Community. The event was attended by 40 MPs.
Mr. Dromey was previously the Deputy General Secretary of the Transport & General Workers' Union, which became Unite was formed on 1 May 2007, after a merger of Amicus and the Transport & General Workers' Union.  Interestingly, Dromey is married to the senior Labour politician Harriet Harman.

According to The Guardian (25th, Januuary 2017):
'Coyne attended a disciplinary hearing on 1 March, where McCluskey said he had read a transcript of the Labour MPs’ meeting.
It seems that there was a disciplinary letter that followed a few days later, in which McCluskey added:
'Given the sensitivity within the Labour party at the moment with constant attacks on the leadership of the party and a clear determination by some to undermine Corbyn and create alternatives, the question is: should a senior officer in Unite have chosen to speak on such a platform (any platform) without seeking the views/authority of the chief of staff or the general secretary or at least sought guidance from the political department.'

Nearly 1,500 branches of Unite, Britain and Ireland’s biggest trade union, have made nominations in the election for the union’s general secretary – the largest number ever.
Len McCluskey, the union’s incumbent general secretary, received 1,185 branch nominations, representing 559,000 Unite members.
Gerard Coyne, Unite’s West Midlands regional secretary, received 187 branch nominations, representing 98,000 Unite members.
Ian Allinson, an employee of Fujitsu in Manchester, received 76 branch nominations, representing 37,000 Unite members.
Unite acting general secretary Gail Cartmail said today: “It is very welcome that so many Unite branches and members have taken a full part in the nominating process for our elections for general secretary and executive council, the greatest democratic procedure in the labour movement.
“The very strong level of participation is good for our democracy and I would urge all Unite members to take the chance to vote when ballot papers are distributed later this month.”
In addition to branch nominations, Unite members in workplaces not covered by a workplace branch can make nominations.  Len McCluskey received 132 such nominations, Gerard Coyne 21 and Ian Allinson 21.
Ballot papers for both elections are distributed from March 27, and the ballot closes on April 19.
- See more at: http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/record-number-of-nominations-in-unite-general-secretary-election-2017/#sthash.XQXb6eS3.dpuf

Nearly 1,500 branches of Unite, Britain and Ireland’s biggest trade union, have made nominations in the election for the union’s general secretary – the largest number ever.
Len McCluskey, the union’s incumbent general secretary, received 1,185 branch nominations, representing 559,000 Unite members.
Gerard Coyne, Unite’s West Midlands regional secretary, received 187 branch nominations, representing 98,000 Unite members.
Ian Allinson, an employee of Fujitsu in Manchester, received 76 branch nominations, representing 37,000 Unite members.
Unite acting general secretary Gail Cartmail said today: “It is very welcome that so many Unite branches and members have taken a full part in the nominating process for our elections for general secretary and executive council, the greatest democratic procedure in the labour movement.
“The very strong level of participation is good for our democracy and I would urge all Unite members to take the chance to vote when ballot papers are distributed later this month.”
In addition to branch nominations, Unite members in workplaces not covered by a workplace branch can make nominations.  Len McCluskey received 132 such nominations, Gerard Coyne 21 and Ian Allinson 21.
Ballot papers for both elections are distributed from March 27, and the ballot closes on April 19.
- See more at: http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/record-number-of-nominations-in-unite-general-secretary-election-2017/#sthash.XQXb6eS3.dpuf

Nearly 1,500 branches of Unite, Britain and Ireland’s biggest trade union, have made nominations in the election for the union’s general secretary – the largest number ever.
Len McCluskey, the union’s incumbent general secretary, received 1,185 branch nominations, representing 559,000 Unite members.
Gerard Coyne, Unite’s West Midlands regional secretary, received 187 branch nominations, representing 98,000 Unite members.
Ian Allinson, an employee of Fujitsu in Manchester, received 76 branch nominations, representing 37,000 Unite members.
Unite acting general secretary Gail Cartmail said today: “It is very welcome that so many Unite branches and members have taken a full part in the nominating process for our elections for general secretary and executive council, the greatest democratic procedure in the labour movement.
“The very strong level of participation is good for our democracy and I would urge all Unite members to take the chance to vote when ballot papers are distributed later this month.”
In addition to branch nominations, Unite members in workplaces not covered by a workplace branch can make nominations.  Len McCluskey received 132 such nominations, Gerard Coyne 21 and Ian Allinson 21.
Ballot papers for both elections are distributed from March 27, and the ballot closes on April 19.
- See more at: http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/record-number-of-nominations-in-unite-general-secretary-election-2017/#sthash.XQXb6eS3.dpuf

According to Gerard Coyne, it appears that based on figures from Corbyn’s entries in the parliamentary register of members’ interests, Unite had given Corbyn £225,000 in the space of 14 months. The union also provided Corbyn with more than £41,000 in other benefits such as staff and office space.
Coyne has also been critical of  the Copeland result in Cumbria. 
Coyne told The Guardian: 'In terms of outcome in Copeland, it was a meltdown in support for Labour and I think there are some very clear reasons why that happened. The reality is that Unite has put an awful lot of money into funding a leader of the Labour party who seems to be out of step with the industrial policies and needs of our members.'
Today, Guido Fawkes on his Blog reported in a post entitled 'Jobs for Votes':

'Another Unite member and staffer said:

'We all thought staff would be left to make their own decision on who they want to run Unite, but I’ve been put under massive pressure to vote for Len and I’m really worried about what will happen if I don’t.

'Unfortunately this exactly what we expected given the culture in Unite, and we’re expecting more of the same at the nomination meeting on Thursday.' 

On Ian Allinson's Blog someone called James Dick posted the following post:
'the last time there was a vote we voted against len and what a responce we got from the other branches in our sector. it was like voting for trump everyone was going nuts, saying it was noted we had backed the other guy and did we not know it was uncle lens country. hope you get enough backing but i think its going to be tought'
Mr. McCluskey must have known that when he called this unnecessary election would open up wounds. In the end the net result will be to damage both Unite and the Labour Party.

The Humbug of Professional Feminism

by Les May

I AM not a feminist.  I dislike feminism as a philosophical stance, because I see no reason to privilege one section of society over another and as a political stance it seems to me self serving, inherently reactionary, intent upon perpetuating unfairness and hierarchies, and destructive of personal relationships.  

Now simply writing this is probably (certainly?) enough to get me lumped with the men that Julie Bindel was writing about in her 2006 opinion piece for the Guardian, 'Why I hate men'.  Seemingly writing that you 'hate' men is OK but writing 'I hate EMOs or Goths or..' well fill in you own list here, could get your remarks logged as 'hate crime'.

Perhaps the height of absurdity has now been reached when a recent piece in the 'i' newspaper turned out to be an interview with a 'professional' feminist, a job which I assume is more lucrative and less tiring than say working for Sports Direct or Amazon.

But whilst 'professional' feminists are still mercifully rare, building a career around feminism is not.  I've already mentioned Julie Bindel who certainly falls into this category, but she is almost unknown outside feminist circles.  Much better known is Labour's  Harriet Harman, she of the 'pink bus' and cousin to David Cameron.  The 'pink bus' campaign did not go down well with some women as you will see from Ella Whelan's comments at Spiked Online.

Harriet's silence on Simon Danczuk's past and recent activities in Spain is telling and suggests she is a bit of a humbug.  In 2002 the BBC reported:

'Crown prosecutors are to be urged to press on with prosecutions in cases of domestic violence, even if the victim wants the case dropped.

Solicitor General Harriet Harman is backing the move as part of a range of measures to crack down on domestic abuse.

'It is about where the public interest lies when the victim is insisting the case be dropped," she will tell a police conference on domestic violence on Tuesday.

'She might want to forgive him, but the next time he assaults her she could be killed.'

So why did she not speak up when the Mail on Sunday reported at length in July 2015 on what Karen Danczuk's family claimed happened in Spain in 2008.  And why, after Mr Danczuk was arrested in Spain recently following an incident which has striking similarities with the 2008 incident, is she still silent?

And before anyone tells me that Mr Danczuk is suspended from the Labour party at present and does not hold the Labour whip, you should know that he is once again trying to sail his ship with a Labour flag, as you will see if you check out his job advert.

Labour MPs have other things to think about at present, like their holidays, but even if they are wise to keep their mouths shut about Simon's recent constituency office tryst, the story Karen Danczuk told in the Sun on Sunday only a few days ago merits a response.  At least from a woman who was once a Labour Solicitor General.  Ironically it is a group of men who were expelled from the Labour party who have made the link between the events in Spain in 2016 and 2008, and want the fallout from the latter re-opened.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/02/whyihatemen

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

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-british-feminist-party-no-thanks/15924

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/pink-bus-labour-women-mps-kitchen-table-tour-female-voters

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/harmans-barbie-bus-the-new-face-of-feminism/16697

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2348319.stm  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157459/Disturbing-questions-Simon-Danczuk-crusades-against-abuse.html

http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=57245  

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/call-for-expusion-case-to-be-re-openned.html

Austerity: Lite or Tight?

THIS letter from Andrew Wastling was sent to Northern Voices, and also addressed to Mr. Paul Harrison , The Editor Rochdale Observer,  for publication on the 'Your Views' page:

"Austerity – Lite or Austerity Tight ? “

IT was heartening to read in Talking Politics : 'Changes will make families worse off', 'Your Views', Rochdale Observer, [ 11.VII.2015 , p.12 ], our MP Simon Danczuk write of the last Budget :

'[It] is clear it is poor working families that are going to bear the brunt of the changes. The plan is to slash tax credits, housing benefit and child tax credit and compensate people with a higher minimum wage, [ misleadingly called a living wage]. While this sounds good in principle, the bottom line is thousands of families in Rochdale will be worse off to the tune of hundreds of pounds.'

So far so good - However, many of us would be interested to know what Simon's  view is on Harriet Harman acting Labour leader saying on the BBC's Sunday Politics programme, at the weekend, that Labour would NOT oppose the government's plan to reduce the overall household benefit cap to £20,000 a year outside London and hinted it would also back the third child limit on future tax credits claims. and  that the Labour Party won't oppose limits to Child Tax Credits in George Osbornes emergency Conservative Budget?

 

Furthermore Harman said that the Labour Party would accept some of the radical welfare cuts imposed by the Tory regime, her capitulation coming as experts around the country rounded on the Tory Governmnet for imposing more grim austerity measures that are “aimed at the poorest “ - what was she thinking?

Just to be absolutley clear , Tax credits have provided precious and targeted support to hundreds of thousands of families across the country for many years; 55% of children across the country are living in families that rely on them – 63% of these families are in work.
 
A staggering 13 million families will be worse off by an average £260 a year due to the four-year freeze in working-age benefits and tax credits announced according to an in-depth assessment of theBudget by independent think-tank The Institute for Fiscal Studies .[1].

Yet despite this Harman seems intent on promoting a ill-thought out brand of “austerity -lite” on the British people. This comes in the wake of others in the Labour Party who seem intent on making them even more irrelevant to working people by the day.

Especially so when we hear Labour’s Shadow Minister for Disabled People, Kate Green MP, refused demands from anti-Austerity campaigners to save the disabled persons Independent Living Fund (ILF) saying  quite clearly that :

'I do need to start by being clear that it’s not Labour’s position to retain the ILF.'

While Labour profess to support fully the right to live independently for disabled people we are now in a situation following plans to close the Independent Living Fund where England is left as the only UK country which will not have it’s own form of a fund to continue to support the additional funding requirements of those who have high support needs.

We have also seen the likes of Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, Rachel Reeve claim that "sanctions " have been part of Britains Welfare State since it's founding. And shortly after being appointed, Reeves said Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives on cutting the benefits bill;

That a member of the same party that originally set up the welfare state can cite such glaring inaccuracies on sanctions which did in fact not exist until 1999, and casualy posist such reactionary views is frankly shocking to many in the wider labour movement & beyond.

Its intresting to note that on a lobby held on 6th January Independent Living Fund recipients called on MPs from all political parties to save the ILF. Caroline Lucas MP who sponsored the lobby told the meeting that her party , the Greens , are fully behind the call to keep and re open the ILF.

On Welfare Reform Labour seem to be intent on becoming what Tristram Hunt , another Liz Kendal leadership contender supporter has described just this week as being ,
'increasingly regarded as irrelevant in the aftermath of its disastrous election defeat.'  -
Quite so Tristram!
 
Only hours after her unilateral announcement three of the four leadership candidates – Andy Burnham, Jeremy Corbyn and Yvette Cooper – all signalled their opposition to the move , with the notable exception of Liz Kendal, Simons prefered Leadership candidate, who said she backs Harriet Harman's policy on welfare cuts.

Already , [ before we have another £50 MILLION in Budget cuts implemented by Rochdale Labour Council , imposed by a Tory Government with only a political mandate of twenty -four percent of the electorate ], a mere  few minutes walk from our MP's Constituency office there already exists in our  town centre ward  of St.Chad, St.Mary & St. Edmund ,   shamefull child poverty and social exclusion statistic that show :
'Child poverty, pensioner poverty and working age poverty in this parish  among the highest in the country. Male life expectancy, female life expectancy and qualification levels in this parish are among the lowest nationally. Lone parenthood in this parish is higher than average compared with other parishes in the country - 36% of children, 39% of pensioners already living in poverty, life expectancy for males reduced to 69 years and 38% of the people living there having no formal qualifications whatsoever.' [2].

It surley begs the obvious question is it still appropriate for Simon to be backing a candidate for the Labour Party leadership who would appear to have so little understanding of the impact such Austerity measures are going to have on child poverty numbers nationally and especially here locally in Rochdale ?

Simon said in the New Statesman in May that :  'Some in Labour will say that this means adopting a "Tory agenda".' [3]- well on this I agree he is exactly right .

Yours faithfully,

ANDREW WASTLING

APPENDIX :

[1]. “Budget 2015: George Osborne's benefit cuts set to make 13 million families 'significantly worse off' “ , The Independent , 09.VII.2015 , please see link at : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-live-george-osbornes-benefit-cuts-set-to-make-13m-families-significantly-worse-off-10378031.html

[2]. Church Urban Fund, 2015.

[3]. “ I'm backing Liz Kendall for one reason - because she can beat the Conservatives “ , New Statesman , Simon Danczuk 27 .V. 2015
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/im-backing-liz-kendall-one-reason-because-she-can-beat-conservatives

Will Labour Suspend Mr Danczuk?

by Les May

If the story in the 'Mail on Sunday' about Simon Danczuk's 2008 holiday in Spain with now estranged wife Karen proves anything it is that since his arrival in Rochdale he has created at lot of enemies and some of them have finally caught up with him.


To many people in Rochdale these stories are not new.  They have been circulating as e-mails and as accounts on the World Wide Web for some years.  What is new is that the witnesses to both the fallout from whatever happened between the couple and the attempted 'cover up' by the Labour Party, have been prepared to go on record and make statements to the MoS about what they saw, heard and did.


My experience of putting questions to Mr Danczuk is that he shrugs them off and refuses to answer, and I have not doubt he will do the same with the MoS story. But there are two organisations which cannot afford to ignore it. The first is the Labour Party which will lose all credibility if it tries to treat this story as just another, 'Daily Mail hatchet job on Labour'.


If there is one thing everyone knows about acting leader Harriet Harman, (she of the pink van), it is that she is forever trumpeting Labour's support for 'women's issues'. Well here is her chance to prove it. At the very least Harriet Harman has to suspend Mr Danczuk temporarily until a new investigation into what happened between the couple in Spain and subsequently, which takes into account both the statements made by Karen Danczuk's family to the MoS and the copies of texts sent by Karen to her family. If she feels reluctant to act upon what is after all as yet only an allegation, albeit a well supported one, she need look no further than Mr Danczuk's own record. 


A Huffington Post article of June 22nd this year said 'Labour MP Simon Danczuk has accused his party of failing to act “quickly and efficiently” after he urged Ed Miliband to remove Lord Janner last year after police revealed historic sex abuse allegations'.  As Leicestershire police were unable to confirm that they were investigating Janner with a view to bringing charges this did not happen. But it did not stop Mr Danczuk milking it for publicity.


Ms Harman also has to investigate, and make public, the actions of Anna Hutchinson, the North-West regional director of the Labour Party who contacted Martin Burke, Karen's father, after he made a complaint to the chairman of Rochdale constituency Labour party about the incident in Spain. If Mr Burke's claims are true, and I have no reason to doubt them, then Ms Hutchinson 'blackmailed' Mr Burke into dropping his complaint by threatening that his son Steven would be prosecuted for an offence falling under the Data Protection Act. This looks very much like an attempt at a 'cover up'.


Given that Mr Danczuk has made his name by claiming that the activities of Cyril Smith and others were 'covered up' by people in high places, there is a certain irony that the same sort of accusations are now being levelled at the Labour party. The second organisation is the Greater Manchester Police service.  The MoS article quotes Karen Danczuk's mother Sue as saying, ‘On the phone, she told me he’d attacked her.  Yet the day after she got home, she was going on about how it was lies.' As with Karen's father Martin I can see no reason to doubt these claims and this rapid change of story surely casts some doubt upon Mrs Danczuk's credibility as a witness.


Either Mr Danczuk did 'attack' her and she changed her story after she got home or she massively exaggerated to her family the nature of the 'argument' the couple had had.  Whatever happened it is difficult to explain why a woman with small children found herself at an airport that was closed for the night with little or no money and no tickets to get home.  In February Mrs Danczuk claimed she had been abused in the family home by an 'older family friend'.  By early March the claim had become that it was her older brother Michael who had 'raped her hundreds of times'.  Michael was subsequently arrested and has been bailed twice.  Two women who Michael had known in the past came forward to press further claims against him.  Whether they were prompted to do so by a third party is unknown. At some time in the not too distant future someone at GMP has the unenviable task of deciding whether charges will be brought against Michael against a background of doubt about whether Mrs Danczuk has proved to be an entirely reliable witness with regard to what really happened in Spain in 2008.


In the past I have been critical of what I call the 'Posh Women's Tendency' in the Labour party.  But on this occasion I hope they will show their mettle and press Harriet to suspend Mr Danczuk from the party. After all she showed no such inhibitions in calling for the BBC to sack Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson because she objected to a word he had used.


Les May http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157459/Disturbing-questions-Simon-Danczuk-crusades-against-abuse
html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/22/simon-danczuk-urged-ed-miliband-to-axe-janner_n_7639938.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/harriet-harman-calls-on-bbc-to-sack-jeremy-clarkson-9319032.html

Who's a 'F**king Knob'?

SIMON Danczuk doesn't wrap nowt up as they say up North!  Yesterday in the Independent, he said of Harriet Harman's tendency for what called 'double speak':  'if you pardon the language:  "what a f**king Knob".'  He then said that Ms. Harman Labour's deputy leader 'had brought politics into disrepute.'

Some may say that this was a bit of the kettle calling the pan black, given Mr. Danczuk's political demeanour and his wife's even stranger behaviour as a minor celebrity on Twitter, and who knows, perhaps in time on Strictly Come Dancing.  But we must remember that Simon Danczuk is a cookbook politician who has learned his trade in recent times studying Cyril Smith's skills at the political racket.

Hence, when he uses foul language and denounces Ms. Harman he is merely aping Cyril Smith's straight-talking believing that the common man (and woman) in Rochdale and elsewhere likes these kind of rough-arsed frolics with English vocabulary.  After all, he knows better than most, that Cyril not only got away with strong language and course speech for years, but actually rose to some influence on the back of this kind of repartee. 

The trouble, despite the shameful nature of Cyril's conduct in other ways, is that somehow Simon lacks Cyril's charisma and wit.  Cyril was not a great beauty in physical terms, but he had a kind of seductive charm offensive that somehow Simon lacks.  Consequently, Simon Danczuk, who looks a bit like Sancho Panza, has to fall back on his own humble upbringing which he may well in his own mind also use compare with that of Cyril Smith background, to try to boost his appeal to the public.

He may well find that Cyril Smith's political skills are not so easy for him to replicate.

How the NCCL lobbied for Paedophiles!

Athough many of the early novels of the English writer Evelyn Waugh, are  exquisitely funny, many people have also found them rude and in bad taste. Had he been writing today, it is doubtful whether a modern-day publisher would  have printed some of his works because of their overtly racist nature. Even in his own day, Waugh was considered a risk in certain quarters. When he offered his first novel 'Decline and Fall' to the publishers 'Duckworth', they rejected it on the grounds of 'indelicacy'. The book was eventually published in 1928, by 'Chapman and Hall' whose Managing Director,  Arthur Waugh, was the author's father.

Although in the first edition of the novel, Waugh wrote: "Please bear in mind throughout that IT IS MEANT TO BE FUNNY", anyone who has read 'Decline and Fall', would have no difficulty in recognising why some people considered this book 'indelicate' at the time of its publication. The novel is replete with such terms as 'nigger', 'chink', and makes rather unflattering remarks and observations about the Welsh. Take this, as an example:

"I think it's an insult bringing niggers here" said Mrs Clutterbuck, "It's an insult to our own women."

"Niggers are all right" said Philbrick, "where I draw the line is a Chink, nasty inhuman things. I had a pal bumped off by a Chink once. Throat cut horrible, it was, from ear to ear."

"Good gracious!" said Mrs Clutterbuck the governess. "Was that in the Boxer rising"?

"No", said Philbrick cheerfully. "Saturday night in the Edgware Road. Might have happened to any of us."

In the early novels, this sort of racism coupled with anti-Semitism, is fairly typical stuff from the pen of the author of Brideshead Revisited. But what some people find particularly objectionable about 'Decline and Fall', are the themes of 'pederasty' and 'prostitution' and the way in which, Waugh deals with these issues, throughout the novel. Although the writer, Christopher Hitchens, consider the novel " a miniature masterpiece", in an essay that he wrote on Waugh,  he said of the novel:

"I remember being quite astounded when I was first introduced to the novel at the age of twelve, by a boarding-school master who later had to be hastily taken away."

The novel tells the story of Paul Pennyfeather, a theological student and 'innocent abroad', who is sent down from Oxford for indecent behaviour, when he's found without his trousers in the quad of Scone College after being debagged by members of the 'Bollinger Club'. Disinherited by his guardian, Pennyfeather is forced to look for work as a school teacher. He's interviewed by Mr. Levy, of the Church and Gargoyle scholastic agents, who says to him:

"Sent down for indecent behaviour eh? Well, I don't think we'll say anything about that. In fact officially, mind, you haven't told me. We call that sort of thing 'Education discontinued for personal reasons'."

At Llanabba Castle school in Wales, Paul is interviewed by Dr. Fagin, who says to him: "I understand, too, that you left university rather suddenly. Now, why was that?" Paul replies: "I was sent down, Sir, for indecent behaviour." "Indeed, indeed?" replies Dr. Fagin. "Well, I shall not ask for details. I have been in the scholastic profession long enough to know that nobody enters it unless he has some good reason which he is anxious to conceal. But again to be practical Mr. Pennyfeather, I can hardly pay £120 to anyone who has been sent down for indecent behaviour. Suppose we fix your salary at £90 a year to begin with."

A character in the novel, Captain Grimes, is a one legged tutor at the school, who is also a pederast and a drunk. In his diaries, Waugh says that Grime's 'monotonously pederastic' prototype, was one William R.B. Young - 'Dick Young', a tutor who worked with Waugh. In the diaries, Waugh explains that Young had been "expelled from Wellington, sent down from Oxford and forced to resign his commission in the army. He had left four schools precipitately, three in the middle of the term through being taken in sodomy and one through his being drunk six nights in succession. And yet he goes on getting better and better jobs without difficulty."

Nowadays, people might find it quite astonishing that the subject of child sex abuse could be treated so lightly and humorously by an English novelist writing in the late 1920s or that a pederastic teacher, could move from one job after another, after being dismissed for sexual abuse. Yet social attitudes and perceptions do change over time and many people reading the novel for the first time, may not have batted an eyelid about the racism or the awful underlying themes of pederasty and prostitution. Certainly, racism was commonplace at the time and both the novelist Graham Greene and John Buchan, have been accused of anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, the physical or sexual abuse of children can never be justified no matter how long ago it took place, on the grounds of historical relativism, or that it furthers some discourse on sexual liberation.

Yet at a time when the police are conducting the Jimmy Savile inquiry and there are investigations taking place into child sex abuse in children's homes throughout the country, it may seem shocking that as recently as 1976, the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), now known as Liberty, petitioned Parliament's criminal law revision committee and argued for incest to be decriminalised and that sexually explicit photographs of children, should be legal unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered harm. Harriet Harman (pictured), the then legal officer of the NCCL (and now Deputy Leader of the Labour Party), argued that it would "increase censorship".  In their petition the NCCL stated that the 'Protection of Children Bill', would lead to "damaging and absurd prosecutions" and stated:

"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage...The real need is a change in attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

At the time the NCCL made its petition to Parliament that "caused barely a ripple", both the 'Paedophile Information Exchange'(PIE), and the 'Paedophile Action for Liberation' (PAL), were active members of the NCCL. In the 1970s, when there were campaigns around the theme of 'sexual liberation', both organisations campaigned to have 'paedophilia' (defined as a person who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pre-pubescent children) classified as a sexual orientation in much the same way as homosexuality is accepted today. Yet, many professionals working within the field of child protection, regard paedophilia as acquired behaviour rather than innate behaviour - something which is learned and can be unlearned. Chris Wilson, of 'Circles UK', who works with released offenders, is dismissive of the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: In a Guardian article about paedophilia, which was published earlier this year, he told the newspaper:

"The roots of desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

Although there are considerable differences of opinion regarding clinical definitions of paedophilia or what causes it,  The 'American Psychological Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', classifies it as "a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic mental disorder." However, sociological studies that have looked at paedophilia, do suggest that not all paedophiles are child molesters and vice versa and that not all paedophiles, act on their impulses. Likewise, many people who do sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. It is also known that the vast majority of sexual violence, is committed by people known to the victim.

Sarah Goode, who has written two major sociological studies on paedophilia, says that "1-in-5 adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children." She also adds: "Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK."