The Guardian Of Truth? by Les May

YESTERDAY, 2 May, the Filipino journalist Maria Ressa was presented with the World Press Freedom Prize by UNESCO in recognition of her fight for free speech in the Philippines where she has been the target of online attacks and judicial processes in which the law and law enforcement have been turned against journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary citizens under President Rodrigo Duterte.

In her acceptance speech she said "Equally dangerous and insidious (is the) virus of lies unleashed in our information ecosystem, infecting real people, who become impervious to facts… It changes the way they look at the world. They become angrier, more isolated. They distrust everything. In this environment, the dictator wins, crumbling our democracies from within."

This is an apocalyptic scenario of our political future: a world where as she puts it ‘power and money rule’. But it’s not just in the political sphere that people are susceptible to becoming impervious to facts as they navigate the information ecosystem. For some people the problem is ‘big tech’, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and the rest of social media, and the answer is for governments to regulate it. This view ignores the experience in the Philippines that it is the government that is using the law to determine what is acceptable as ‘facts’.

Nor is it just with social media that the problems reside. Mainstream outlets have exploited the knowledge that most people do not check what is fact and what is opinion. Pointing out that just because someone says something is true does not make it so, is unwelcome news both to some people in the media and to many readers and viewers. Facts become just what someone wants to believe and woe betide anyone who disagrees. I don’t take at face value what Meghan Markle had to say in her televised interview. I don’t matter, but Piers Morgan paid the price for his dissent.

The Guardian, once a byword for rectitude and fairness, has no qualms about printing a story about the actor Noel Clarke knowing that the likely outcome will be that he will never be able to clear his name and will probably never be able to work as an actor again. I have no idea about whether whether the allegations made are true or false, and importantly, nor does the person who wrote it or the editor who chose to include it in the paper. The editor could, and in my view should, have declined to publish any allegations which had not been reported to the police by the complainants.

By last Saturday The Independent, another supposedly quality paper, was running a story by Victoria Richards which began ‘I have never met Noel Clarke, but I have met men who have behaved in the way Clarke is accused of behaving’. Again, if what she says in this piece is true, why did she not report it to the police? Why should I believe her just because she says it?

A few days ago the Victims Commissioner said ‘Far too few rape cases are resulting in a charge and hundreds of complainants annually are being denied justice.’ But where is the justice for anyone, accuser or accused, in the Noel Clarke story? Where in the response of ITV and Sky is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? The question ceases to be whether the accused will get a fair trial, it becomes whether s/he will get a trial at all.

Maria Ressa spoke of a ‘virus of lies’; so how do we vaccinate ourselves against it? The first thing is to recognise that it is not just a problem of ‘Big Tech’. Supposedly more respectable, media outlets try to shape our perception of events by what they decide is a story and how they slant it.

The second thing is to recognise that it is a problem we have to solve for ourselves and our families, rather than relying on a government imposed solution, which itself may become dangerous to free thought and expression. As Maria Ressa put it "fight and win your individual battle for integrity". Don’t buy your teenage daughter an expensive smartphone and then complain when something bad happens to her.

Scepticism about the truth of what you see, what you read and what you are told if you venture into what Ressa calls the ‘information ecosystem’ has to be the order of the day. There is a lot of space between distrusting everything and watching the dictators win because you no longer know what is true and what is false, and filtering out (some of) the lies and manipulation by questioning everything.

We can ask: Who is saying this? How reliable have they been in the past? Is there any way of independently verifying their account? Who gains from this version of events? Are they trying to pass off assertions as facts? These things require some effort on our part. If we are not prepared to make it there is one thing we can all do; don’t pass on stories unless you are certain they are true. Better still; don’t gossip!

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

'Joint Enterprise'* and deportation!

by John Wilkins

AN article in The Guardian caught my eye this week because it dealt with the use of what it termed “controversial and discriminatory joint enterprise law.” It also involved the order to deport the person involved in a crime.

I will outline the case first but then look at how double standards seem to be involved when it is a 'black' person rather than a 'white' or 'brown' person involved.

Osime Brown is 21 years old Jamaican born man who came to the UK aged just 4. He is autistic and was slow as a child even in learning to walk. He had behavioural and learning problems at school and it resulted in exclusion aged 16. It would seem his problems had not been forensically diagnosed until then so he never received adequate support, merely being labelled disruptive.

He had been engaged in low level criminal behaviour but the latest crime involved the theft of a mobile phone. Although he was part of the group who took the phone witnesses said he had asked the other teenagers he was with to stop the street robbery, but he was convicted under the joint enterprise law which anyone considered complicit in a crime can be arrested even if they played no part in the crime. Critics say this law has disproportionately criminalised many young black men with those imprisoned through it being 11 times their presence in the community.

I used the term double standards in the headline for a reason. Our local Campaign Group, BOLD, have been following up the way our local authority have appeared to 'sweep under the carpet' the conviction of only 4 out of nearly 20 men who were present when a local workman suffered three broken ribs, a punctures lung and nearly had his hand severed in an axe attack. They were summoned by one of the gang by phone after the victim interceded in a dispute between the man and a lady driver.

The judge quite clearly termed it gangsterism and when local MP was asked to condemn the case as gangsterism he was happy to publicly acknowledge it as such also. Despite councillors, including the leader, the Local Authority officials being asked not just to condemn the gangsterism and how they can work with the police to reduce it in area no one is prepared to comment. A contrast here is that the police have been very open and forthright about how they are working on this issue.

That is one comparison with how Osime has been treated but let me turn to a more startling disparity, that of deportation. The effect of imprisonment itself on Osime has been considerable. He has suffered racial abuse and bullying. Without, his mother says, a mentor or support worker his health has deteriorated and he is self harming. He does not fully comprehend how he would cope in Jamaica, thinking he could catch a bus to visit mum from there!

I have over time felt that those now termed Immigration Enforcement Officers will use easy targets to boost their figures for deportations. Now I come to another very worrying comparison again from my town Rochdale.

Few people will not have knowledge of the grooming scandal involving vulnerable young girls in Rochdale. Three members of the grooming gang remain in the UK more than 18 months after they lost an appeal against losing their British citizenship. I concur with the Independent's sub headline: 'Home Office accused of prioritising offenders with Jamaican roots over sex abusers.'

Yes Osime has been involved in low level crime, but deportation would be extremely cruel for him with no family support in Jamaica and a condition which will make him even more vulnerable there. It is known that at least 11 have died as a result of unjust deportation from the Windrush scandal, it is likely that Osime could be another unnecessary death. I urge you to sign the Change.org petition for Osime Brown.

* Editor's note on Joint Enterprise:

'Why joint enterprise is unfair and needs changing' by Sandra Paul in The Law Society Gazette 23 December 2014

Exactly two years ago, I stood in tears outside Wood Green Crown Court, having just left my 16-year-old client, one of four teenage black males of previous good character, in the cells facing a three-year custodial sentence for GBH. Some 18 months earlier, he had been part of an altercation at Hendon tube station.

He was guilty of common assault, even ABH, and certainly affray. All of these were offered as guilty pleas to the prosecution. However, they were rejected on the basis that joint enterprise would convict a group of the more serious offence of GBH.

CCTV footage shows my client was as far as 20 feet away from the victim at the time he was stabbed. However, my client was convicted of section 18 GBH on the basis that it was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that others might get involved when he punched the complainant and that ‘serious harm might’ result, irrespective of whether that was what he intended. My client was 14 at the time of the incident and I am convinced could not have forseen that his action could have led to the ultimate outcome which resulted.

Looking at the CPS guideline published since then, I am hopeful, but not convinced, that a review on the same facts would lead to a different result. Consideration of the judge’s directions for the jury outlined in the Crown Court Bench Book is equally problematic for young people.

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

Lies, Damn Lies and Labour Councillors

by Les May

AT first sight it might seem that the most important political development in Rochdale in recent days is the decision of two well known Labour figures to join the Brexit party.  But any crowing from Labour’s opponents may be short lived.  If it’s members get their way it’s raison d’être will vanish on the first of November.  Only if they fail will it have any further reason to exist.   Either way it looks like a move into a political cul de sac.

Of more long term significance is the decision of Councillor Jacqui Beswick to resign the Labour whip and sit as an Independent.

She is reported to have taken the decision due to the way the party had handled false allegations against her. She has said ‘I believed that after the local elections my complaint would be dealt with, sadly that wasn't the case and I have been told recently that it could be quite some time before that happens’.

There is rather more background to this story than is apparent from this statement.

About six months ago I attended a meeting of people with a background in the Labour movement,  Labour activists and supporters, and some with a Trades Union background.   Most lived in the Heywood and Middleton constituency.  Also present at the meeting was John Blundell who represents a ward in the Rochdale constituency.   From the start it was clear that there was some antagonism towards him and his presence was not welcomed by a majority of the people at the meeting.

A number of people at the meeting were aware that another Labour councillor had made serious allegations against Councillor Beswick and wanted to discuss the matter further. The unwelcome Councillor Blundell managed to block any discussion by suggesting that repeating the allegations might be construed as defamatory and that the allegations were ‘under investigation’.

There were a lot of people at the meeting who will remember what Councillor Blundell said and a recording of exactly what he said may exist. I don’t think anyone present will believe a word he says in the future and it may be that some will conclude that he was lying.

The treatment of Councillor Beswick by the Labour leadership of Rochdale council looks very much like what is known in trades union terms as ‘Constructive Dismissal’.  A Labour councillor has a right to expect that when allegations are made against them they will be investigated by the party within a reasonable time frame. The failure to do this is analogous to a ‘repudiatory breach’ in employment terms.

There exists a significant lack of trust in the Labour leadership in Rochdale amongst many people who are otherwise solidly behind the Labour party. Labour politics in Rochdale has been described to me on a number of occasions as ‘a cess pit’. The treatment of Jacqui Beswick will do nothing to sweeten the smell from it.

More details can be found at;

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2019/05/labour-party-strange-allegations.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/06/brave-new-world-hatching-eggs.html

North East: Labour Lose Control

LABOUR have suffered a catastrophe in the local elections after losing control of all five Tees Valley councils and dozens of seats in the process. 

The results mean Labour has lost control of Middlesbrough Council for the first time since 1974, Stockton Borough Council for the first time since 1979, Darlington Borough Council for the first time since 1991 and Hartlepool Borough Council for the first time since 2010.

In Darlington, the party lost control of the council and the Conservatives are now the biggest party.
The Tories have 22 seats, Labour 20, Liberal Democrats three, Independent three, and Greens two.
Conservative leader Heather Scott said she was "absolutely delighted" with the result.

In Middlesbrough, Labour have lost their majority for the first time since the council was created.
Independents are currently on 22 seats, with Labour on 18. One result is still to declare.
In Hartlepool, Labour were left without a majority, and suffered several losses including two senior councillor, whilst in Stockton, it has been confirmed the party cannot retain control.
Labour have also suffered significant losses in Redcar, falling from 29 seats to 15. Independents are now the biggest group with 18,Lib Dems on 13, Conservatives 11 and UKIP two.
There was also a crushing defeat for Labour in the Middlesbrough Mayor election, with Independent Andy Preston storming to victory to win with 58 per cent of the vote.
His nearest rival, Labour’s Mick Thompson, came in at 22.93 per cent.
Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen said the results were "stunning", adding: "The people of the Tees Valley have voted for real, positive change."

In Hartlepool, Labour councillors Rob Cook, chair of the planning committee, and deputy council leader Kevin Cranney, chair of the regeneration committee, lost their seats in the De Bruce and Foggy Furze ward respectively.

In De Bruce The For Britain Movement gained their first seat with Karen King, while in Foggy Furze, Lee Cartwright, from the Veterans’ and People’s Party, gained the seat.

The party lost overall control of Stockton Council, throwing the future of decisions at the authority into uncertainty, as they lost six seats in all – taking 24 of the 56 seats available, while the Thornaby independents made hay.

Labour remains the biggest group in the borough, but it fell short of the 29 it needed to form a majority administration.

***********

Interserve Deal to Dodge Carillion Dilemma

by Brian Bamford

DESPITE a deal with lenders on the principles of a debt for an equity rescue at INTERSERVE, a major shareholder has now called for a general meeting to dethrone several directors at Interserve, a major outsourcing company.    

Last December, Ben Chapman in the Independent, commenting on Interserve, wrote:
'The company has long had a close relationship with government and was a key contractor in post-war construction but it was in the 1990s privatisation and outsourcing boom that it morphed into the diversified beast that it is today.'

Coltrane Master Fund, which holds over 5% in the group, has now called for the general meeting with the aim of removing key directors: Glyn Barker, Mark Whiteling, Russell King, Anne Fahy, Nick Salmon, Gareth Edwards, Dougie Sutherland and Nicholas Pollard.

This is all rather worrying and reminisant of the Carillion melt-down, because a year ago after the collapse of Carillion, Construction Enquirer reported that:

'Beleaguered Interserve had some good news for the City this morning with confirmation of a five-year contract award worth £227m from the Department for Work and Pensions.

'Interserve will provide the DWP estate with mechanical, electrical and building maintenance.

'The company will also provide cleaning, catering, waste disposal, removal and secure destruction of confidential waste services to over 700 buildings throughout the UK, covering over 1.3 million square metres of space.' 

Today, Debbie White, the CEO of Interserve, has said:  'Agreeing the key commercial terms of the deleveraging plan with our lenders, bonding providers and Pension Trustee is a significant step forward in our plans to strengthen the balance sheet.'

White added:  'The board believes that this agreement will secure a strong future for Interserve. 
'This proposal has been achieved following a long period of intensive negotiation and has the support of our financial stakeholders and Government. 
'Its successful implementation is critical to the Interserve group’s future and all of its stakeholders.'

 Watch this space!

**********

Asia Bibi Needs a Smartphone

by Les May

RAHAF Mohammed al-Nun is an 18 years old woman who has renounced Islam, fled Saudi Arabia, claims that if she were returned she would be killed, has been declared a refugee by the United Nations and has been granted asylum in Canada. Asia Bibi is 52 years old Pakistani woman who was on death row for eight years before being declared innocent of blasphemy by the Pakistan Supreme Court.  Since 2 November last year she has been in protective custody to keep her safe from mobs who refuse to accept the verdict of the court and want to hang her.

Whilst Rahaf has been enabled to start a new life Asia is still effectively a prisoner separated from her children and her husband.  So why the difference? Why has Rahaf attracted world wide attention and Asia been largely forgotten?

There’s a clue in a long article by Janet Street-Porter (JSP) in today’s Independent.  JSP slants her article so that Rahaf is to be seen as a woman fleeing from a male dominated society.  She even manages to bring in the 120 or so women at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre who, like Asia Bibi are separated from their family, as no doubt the men are too.  Rahef’s ‘crime’ is to simply want to make decisions about her own life. Asia Bibi’s is to be a Christian in a predominantly Muslim country.   The option she was given was convert to Islam or be tried for blasphemy. There’s no ‘feminist’ angle here.  It is, or should be, a human rights issue and deserving of our support for that reason.

There are two other reasons why these two women have been treated differently. When Rahaf reached Canada she was greeted by a government minister who went on to praise her countries diplomats.  Giving her asylum will not improve relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has close ties with the UK, but Asia Bibi is something of an embarrassment to our government.   The Foreign Office has opposed offering her asylum, though it has been unwilling to go on the public record as to why it has taken this stance. Some people have viewed this as a willingness to ‘bend the knee’ to right wing extremists in Pakistan. I’m one of them.

The second reason is the simple fact that Rahaf has a smartphone and Asia Bibi does not. In one day Rahaf acquired 27,000 ‘followers’ on Twitter with her hashtag #SaveRahaf. For the Saudis the plight of one young woman had grown to an international incident overnight.

At present Asia Bibi is an innocent woman being held under what is effectively house arrest.  The president of Pakistan, Imran Khan, has shown himself unwilling to act to make sure she goes free immediately. Governments treat him with kid gloves in the hope of keeping him ‘on side’.  Saudi Arabia pumps money into the country to keep it solvent.   There’s little sign that the Bibi case will ever ‘go viral’ on Twitter. It seems being a Christian is seriously uncool amongst the Twitterati.

No doubt Rahaf’s story will get an outing in the Sunday papers this weekend and probably next week she’ll feature on Woman’s Hour.  As for Asia Bibi I’m not holding my breath as I wait for the feministas to notice.

*********** 

Roots of Theresa May's Flawed Character

by Brian Bamford

THERESA May has been recently attacked for being 'weak and wobbly' despite her claim to be a 'safe and stable' pair of hands.  The most recent signs of her weakness being this weekend's departure of her closest advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill.after criticisms from senor MPs.

Another sign of her enfeebled state according to today's Financial Times is 'her weakness, [by her leaving] her most senior ministers in their jobs rather than risk making new enemies, amid speculation she might face a leadership challenge later this year.'

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, in whom she was clearly unhappy with over the forced reversal of his 'white van tax' after the budget, Boris Johnson, the current foreign secretary, Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, are all still in place.

This flaw in her character can be traced back to when she was Home Secretary in July 2014, when following publication of the now disgraced Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk's book 'Smile for the Camera' in April 2014.  On Monday the 28th, April 2014, the then leader of Rochdale Council, Colin Lambert extended its enquiry into child sex abuse.  Following this Theresa May was stampeded into setting up what was to become an overarching enquiry for which she appointed Baroness Butler-Sloss as its first chair in July 2014, more were to follow, and by December 2014 it was reported that Theresa May was reconsidering arrangements for the enquiry.

Most of us who trouble ourselves about this matter have by now lost count of the seemingly endless chops and changes with what became of this overarching enquiry into child sex abuse. 
.
The first two chairs appointed to the original panel enquiry were Baroness Butler-Sloss (appointed 8 July 2014, stepped down 14 July 2014) and Fiona Woolf (appointed 5 September 2014, stepped down 31 October 2014).   The reasons for their withdrawal in each case were objections related to their perceived closeness to individuals and establishments which would be investigated.  There were also objections to the shape of the enquiry itself, concerning testimony, the scope of enquiry, and lack of ability to compel witnesses to testify.  In December 2014 it was reported that Theresa May was reconsidering arrangements for the enquiry.

As long ago as  Monday 7 July 2014, The Independent reported:
'An expert panel will also have the power to scrutinise the behaviour of political parties, the security services and private companies amid allegations that paedophile networks operated with impunity in the 1970s and 1980s.'

At the time The Independent reported:
'A "Hillsborough-style" investigation into historic child sex abuse claims will take place.
Home Secretary Theresa May said the wide-ranging review would look into how authorities dealt with allegations paedophiles abused children.  She said the independent inquiry, which is likely to take years, could become a full public inquiry if needed.'

The same newspaper bravely reported:
'The panel will report on its interim findings ahead of the general election next May in a move to reassure critics that its findings are not being kicked into the long grass.'

This whole inquiry, which was devised by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, now looks like the House that Jack Built,   All of this was triggered by a book 'Smile for the Camera' which some now regard as less decent than ordinary bullshit, written by a man who is now generally recognised as the squalid former Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, 

Liberal Democrat Welcomes Danczuk dumping

THIS morning The Independent reported that Simon Danczuk MP for Rochdale, having been dumped by the Labour Party, 'is now thought to be considering standing as an independent and may also launch a legal challenge'.  
Last night, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Rochdale, Councillor Andy Kelly, issued the following statement:
'If Simon Danczuk cannot stand for Labour - then that's good news for our Town. The Liberal Democrats are fighting hard to win in June. We have dozens of new members and activists ready to give Rochdale the fresh start it deserves.'
Andy Kelly further speculates saying:

 'We fully expect Danczuk to stand as an Independent to pocket close to a whopping £40,000 redundancy package. It would be interesting to see whether the local Labour Party back him as they have continued to do throughout the scandals that have dragged our town down.'

A Labour Party spokesperson confirmed the decision about Mr Danczuk:
'After considering the case of Simon Danczuk in detail and speaking to him in an interview, the Labour party’s NEC endorsement panel today unanimously recommended that he should not be endorsed as a Labour candidate. 
'He will not be able to stand as a Labour candidate in any constituency at the general election,' the spokesperson told the Guardian.
Danczuk, who has been involved in a series of scandals, was been suspended from the party in December 2015, when he sent sex messages to a 17-year-old girl who was seeking a job.
Mr Danczuk has not yet formally responded to the Labour Party decision.

Carl Faulkner on Rochdale's Council allowances

CARL Faulkner (pictured) from up Rooley Moor Road in Rochdale, has a letter published in the Rochdale Observer today in which he challenges the generous rises in councilor's allowances that Rochdale politicians of all parties, with the exception of the Liberal Democrat Party, awarded themselves in the Rochdale Town Hall council chamber last week.  Mr. Faulkner is not just jumping on the popular band-wagon of public opinion which clearly opposes the current increase in councilor's allowances because below is the statement he put out when he stood as an Independent in the local Rochdale elections for Spotland & Falinge Ward in 2014:

'If elected, I will be the only councillor who will not take any councillor allowances.

'Two years on from the last local elections, councillors have not cut their own generous income they receive from the council by a single penny, but many local people have lost their jobs because of council cutbacks. What does that tell you?  There are many people throughout the Borough who work extremely hard in a truly voluntary capacity.  They do not expect nor receive financial reward. I believe councillors should be no different and their time should be given freely – or not at all.

I am standing as an Independent because I genuinely believe we need councillors who are not part of the three-ring circus that passes for local democracy. Local issues should be left to local people whose passion is their town and not their chosen, private political organisation.  A councillor is not elected to deal with national issues and any councillors who think they are part of the national political scene are deluding themselves and the people who elect them.  Let our MP concern himself with such matters. That’s what he’s paid for.

'The primary purpose of an elected councillor is to ensure our council acts in the best interests of the people it serves - not in the interests of itself.  Far too often our councillors are too busy promoting the alleged achievements of their chosen party to properly undertake this basic function.

'I will support all who act in the best interests of Spotland and our town regardless of their own party affiliations.

'Party politics has let us down.  It’s time for a true Independent Spotland voice on the council; someone whose mind is not shackled because they have been elected under a party banner of convenience.'

Studies in the Anatomy of the British Left

by Brian Bamford

IT is now almost 50 years since Harold Garfinkel wrote his book 'Studies in Ethnomethodology' in 1967.  Garfinkel's book was a systematic attack on the kind of sociological and ideological thinking that was prevailing in much of the social sciences at that time, and which amounted to 'cookbook analysis'.  With a  functionalist or Marxist cookbook one didn't need to think critically or empirically about social phenomena or real life events; all one needed to do was to produce a suitable recipe to deal with the world.

In his essay in The Independent on the current thinking of the 'radical left' Bailey Lamon seems to have uncovered the latest facet of the phenomena of 'cookbook thinking' among some of the current half-baked student community of scholars at the beginning of the 21^st century.   Claiming to have been 'involved in activism since the Occupy Movement of 2011', Bailey Lamon makes a perceptive observation in which he contrasts the world of what he calls the 'oppressed groups,... such as the homeless, abused, addicted' with that of the half-baked students and activists, who in their wisdom claim to be able to diagnose the problems of those that suffer and to prescribe cures and generally to cleanse us all of our imperfections.  Mr. Lamon addresses the challenge to such clever-dick thinking which besets seemingly most of the British left:

'If you’ve ever worked with oppressed groups, such as people who are homeless, abused, addicted or suffering from mental health problems, there's one thing you learn straight away. They usually don't frame their worldviews in terms of academic theories students learn in gender studies classes in university. For the most part, they tend to not analyse their experiences in terms of systemic power and privilege, concepts such as “the patriarchy”, “white privilege”, or “heteronormativity”.

'While many of these folks know that they're directly impacted by class inequality, they don't sit around pondering capitalism, reading Marx, or tackling the effects of “problematic behaviours”. They are not concerned with checking their privilege.  No.  They are busy trying to survive. Getting through the next day. Meeting their basic needs. They don't bother with policing their language and worrying about how their words might unintentionally perpetuate certain stereotypes.  They are more concerned with their voices being heard.'   
Young students today are desirous of passing exams and the easiest way to accomplish this is in finding some ideological formula or recipe knowledge to spout out pretentious doctrines and slogans such as 'patriarchy'; 'white privilege' or 'heteronormativity'.  What these bumptious people lack in experience of poverty; life in the workplace; the prison yard or living on the streets, they try to compensate by pseudo-intellectual blather.
Mr Lamon writes about some of the people he encountered in the Occupy Movement: 
'Yet I witness so many “activists” who ignore the realities of oppression despite saying that they care about those at the bottom of society.  They think that being offended by something is equal to experiencing prison time or living on the streets.  They talk about listening, being humble and not having preconceptions.  Yet they ignore the lived experiences of those who don’t speak or think properly in the view of university-educated social justice warriors, regardless of how much worse off they really are.'
These people are so convinced that they, and only they, have the key to the universe and that what they believe must be self-evident that they do not accept that their views should be subject to any form of forensic examination.  Consequently as we have noticed on many occasions they believe that they have the entitlement to coerce others to swallow whatever fashionable fad that they have embraced.
God help the British Left!
See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-this-radical-activist-is-disillusioned-by-the-toxic-culture-of-the-left-a6895211.html 

Jeremy Corbyn & Trident

Out of Step

‘SOME of Corbyn’s positions are flatly unpopular,’ Tom Crewe writes (LRB, 11 August).  ‘On Trident especially he is way out of step with public opinion.’  He supplies no evidence in support of this wild statement.  The CND’s website lists 11 different polls over the last ten years that have indicated majorities against renewal of Trident:  63 per cent in the Mail on Sunday in June 2010, 58 per cent in the Independent in September 2009 and so on.  Stop the War cites data compiled by Nick Ritchie and Paul Ingram, who reviewed all the polling data between 2005 and July 2013.  They found that ‘13 representative polls have offered a straight choice between renewing Trident or not. Opinion has varied from poll to poll and from year to year, but seven surveys have found more opposition to renewal than support.’  The average was 39.4 per cent in favour of renewing Trident and 44.4 per cent against, with the rest unsure.  When the cost of Trident is mentioned, support tends to drop significantly.  In a study conducted by Greenpeace in 2005, for example, 44 per cent supported Trident and 46 per cent opposed it, but if an alternative spending proposal was mentioned – the number of schools that could be built instead – just 33 per cent remained in favour and 54 per cent against.  A YouGov poll in 2009 that offered alternative spending proposals found that just 30 per cent opted to spend the money on nuclear weapons.

What’s more, these polls were taken when the costs of Trident were estimated to be much lower than they are now.  The lifetime cost of Trident is currently estimated at £205 billion and, according to the Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, could rise exponentially.   ‘This is a colossal investment in a weapons system that will become increasingly vulnerable,’ he has said, ‘and for whose security we will have to throw good money after bad – in fact tens of billions more than already estimated – to try to keep it safe in the decades to come.’

Frank Stone
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

 

Letter in London Review of Books / Sept 2016

Letter sent to NV from Trevor Hoyle, Rochdale.

Getting Rid of Corbyn!

by Les May

RECENTLY at a fund raising event John McDonnell, Labour Shadow Chancellor is reported to have denounced those seeking to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn saying, 'They have been plotting and conniving. The only good thing about it, as plotters they are fucking useless'.

Now having said much the same thing myself a couple of days ago I am unlikely to disagree with this sentiment, though I would not have given the media a stick to be me with by using those exact words!

Just how useless they are can best be seen by watching them toy with the idea that the best way to proceed is to field a second candidate and so split the anti- Corbyn vote.  But as a Labour voter happy with the direction in which Corbyn is trying to lead the party I would say that wouldn't I?.

So what do other people think?

Two days ago Matthew Norman writing for the Independent attached the sobriquet 'Tiny Tears' to Angela Eagle and yesterday Richard Godwin wrote in the Evening Standard:
 'With the best will in the world, if the answer to Labour’s woes is Angela Eagle in a fuchsia blazer — capable and honourable politician though she may be — then you have to wonder at the phrasing of the question.'

As for Owen Smith, who is being talked up as a 'soft left' candidate by people who think we Labour voters are soft headed, this is what Guido Fawkes had to say, 'Owen Smith is hoodwinking people on the left of the Labour Party into believing he is one of their own. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smith’s nickname when he worked as a corporate lobbyist at Pfizer was “Oily Smith” because everyone was wise to his habit of telling people what he thought they wanted to hear.'

Time to remind the plotters of Denis Healey’s first law of politics: 'when you’re in a hole, stop digging.'
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/richard-godwin-labour-must-get-real-if-it-wants-to-fight-the-tories-a3294761.html
http://order-order.com/2016/07/13/241581/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/03/denis-healeys-10-most-celebrated-quotes-former-labour-chancellor

A long-running Critque of 'Smile for the Camera'

by Les May 

I have been critical of the book 'Smile for the Camera' by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker since it was published in April 2014 which is why two weeks Iater, on 28 April 2014, I posted a critical review on Amazon under the pseudonym Rufus with the title 'A lightweight potboiler'.  


http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R3A7XZP51EW0A6/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1849548757  

But I have never doubted that Cyril Smith did indecently assault a number of young men at Cambridge House hostel in the early to mid 1960s.  An account of this was placed in the public domain in a detailed article written by the co-editors David Bartlett and John Walker in the May 1979 issue of Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP).  I read this at the time and since I began to research the book John Walker has sent me copies of the affidavits by some of these young men and I have been sent a statement by a man who was subjected to a fake medical by Smith, but not interviewed by RAP or by the police when Smith was investigated in 1969/70.  


Although the book purports to give a verbatim account of what Smith did to one young man who had taken a day off work in a chapter headed 'Silent Voices #1' there are some strange passages in this section.  For example on page 87 we read: 
'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.'   


Now this is supposed to be the recollections of a man who had his backside whacked by Smith for taking a day off work fifty years earlier. But it gets even stranger.   


At one point we read: 
'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. He was humming quietly to himself. Then he reached for a wet sponge by the sink and began to stroke my bottom, rough hands sliding over a minefield of welts. I gritted my teeth as the burning, stinging sensation intensified. Ever once in a while he'd apply the sponge generously, letting cold water trickle down the back of my legs.'   


As can be seen from the accounts in the appendix (which were taken in their entirety from RAP's 1979 article) Smith's punishment of a resident for taking a day off work and Smith's use of a sponge after punishing a resident for stealing money refer to two different individuals.  I may be drawing the wrong conclusion here, but to my mind this throws considerable doubt upon what is in the book being an entirely accurate record of any interview conducted by the authors.  It may just be coincidence that the account in the book and the two accounts which appeared in RAP are so similar.  But it would be quite remarkable if other similarities turn up.   


I have repeatedly asked Mr Danczuk to tell me how many men he interviewed who claim to have been assaulted by Smith after the closure of Cambridge House.  Re-reading what I have written above I'm beginning to wonder if I should not also have pressed him to tell me how many men he interviewed who claim to have been assaulted at Cambridge House.   


So if the evidence that Smith did indecently assault young men at Cambridge House is so strong, why was he never prosecuted?


We now know Lancashire Police investigated Smith's activities at Cambridge House in 1969 and that in March 1970 an 80 page file of evidence was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) containing complaints from eight young men about indecent assaults by him. The Greater Manchester Police update of 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, leaving the impression that they refer to separate complaints, which they don't.   


The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was established following the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and started operating from 1 October 1986.  Prior to this prosecutions were handled by the police.  Difficult decisions/ cases were referred to DPP’s Office. 


The fact that the police did not immediately prosecute Smith suggests that they thought it a 'difficult' case which needed to be submitted to the DPP.  This was done on 8 March and returned on 19 March 1970.  According to the 1979 RAP article it was 'marked for no further action on the basis of insufficient evidence'.  However, a statement from the CPS dated 27 November 2012 says that a one page letter was sent to the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary.   


The full letter read:   
'I have considered your file and I observe that eight young men, whose ages range from nineteen to twenty-four years, allege that between 1961 and 1966 Smith subjected them to various forms of indecency and I also observe that Smith denies their allegations. Any charges of indecent assault founded on these allegations, as well as being somewhat stale, would be, in my view, completely without corroboration. Further, the characters of some of these young men would be likely to render their evidence suspect.  
'In the circumstances, I do not consider that if proceedings for indecent assault were to be taken against Smith, there would be a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I do not, therefore, advise his prosecution.'   


If one is so minded it is possible to construct any number of 'conspiracy theories' around the fact that Smith was not prosecuted, including the idea that he was being protected by a gang of powerful paedophiles.  But the 'Law and Lawyers' website published a clarification on 30 November 2012, i.e. about two weeks after Simon Danczuk had 'rediscovered' the 1970 allegations against Smith and some eighteen months before 'Smile for the Camera' was published. 


This reads as follows:  
'The reasons given by Skelhorn for advising against prosecution are of some legal interest.  The reasons were in a letter from Skelhorn to the Chief Constable of Lancashire (19th March 1970).  Skelhorn stated that the allegations were “without corroboration".'  “Corroboration" was, at the time, a very significant element in the law of evidence applicable to criminal cases.  A trial judge was required to warn juries of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in sexual cases.   The only exception to this was a sexual case where the identity of the alleged assailant was in issue but not the commission of the offence itself - R v Chance [1988] 3 All ER 225, CA. 
What was referred to as a FULL warning had to be given and failure to do so could render a conviction unsafe.  The jury had to be told:
1. That it was dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the witness but that if they (the jury) were satisfied of the truth of such evidence they might nevertheless convict;
2. The technical meaning of corroboration had to be explained;
3.  The jury had to be told which evidence was (and which was not) capable of amounting in law to corroboration;
4.  It also had to be explained to the jury that, as the tribunal of fact, they had to decide whether the available evidence did in fact constitute corroboration.   
'Sir Norman Skelhorn's opinion would, of course, have been based on the law as it stood in 1970 and the need for formal corroboration of the complainant's evidence amounted to a formidable hurdle in many cases of this type.'   


My understanding is that the fact that there were multiple complainants did not in itself amount to 'corroboration'.  From a lay perspective I find this contrary to common sense.  
Had Smith been taken before the courts in the 1990s when the complaints were looked at on two further occasions he would have had to be tried under the law which existed at the time the offences were committed and the need for 'corroboration' would still have amounted to what 'Law and Lawyers website' calls 'a formidable hurdle'.  The 1979 RAP article might also have been considered to be prejudicial to a fair trial. 
 
The requirement for an obligatory warning to be given was removed in 1994 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.  Hence if Smith had committed the offences after that date, not fifty years ago, he would certainly have been prosecuted.  


Danczuk and Baker have eight entries in the index under the title 'Smith helped by establishment cover up' spread over some twenty pages of the book.  Careful reading of the book shows that this narrative is just something conjured up out of the authors' imagination, and sustained by seeking and then interpreting evidence to support this claim.  The account on pages 221-222 (of Smile for the Camera) of the police failing to detain him in Northamptonshire has already been discredited by the police themselves, and the claims about Elm Street Guest House are beginning to look very doubtful.   


Just as with the repetition of the 'police files' on Smith there is repetition of how these were taken by the security services.  On page 84 (Smile for the Camera) we read:  
'Police files documenting the many accusations of child abuse committed by Cyril were suddenly disappearing.  Tony Robinson, a Special Branch officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, confirmed that all files on Cyril were removed by MI5 officers from the safe at their police headquarters in Preston and taken to London.  It wasn't just the lid of the box which had been slammed shut on Cyril's dark secrets.  The box itself had no been shipped away to permanent obscurity.'  


Note here how Danczuk and Baker refer to 'files documenting the many accusations', when the Greater Manchester Police update does not mention any other group of complainants.  Clearly there was a single substantial file containing the allegations previously sent to the DPP.  
This story is repeated on page 143 as:   
'When Tony Robinson, a Special Branch officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, revealed in 2012 how police files on Cyril had been requested by MI5, he explained that he had known immediately why they'd wanted them.  MI5 had a unit that monitored MPs and reported to the Cabinet Office.  At the time of the Lib-Lab Pact Liberal MPs would have been checked out to determine whether they were suitable for high office.  “The fact that the security service wanted the file brought to my notice obviously indicated that he was about to be vetted,” said Robinson.'
Precisely!   So what's the mystery?  Why is this evidence of an 'establishment cover up'?  Removing the files to London and out of reach of seemingly garrulous policemen is a reasonable way of protecting the security of the state by ensuring that Smith could not be blackmailed by agents of a foreign power. 
 
My reference to 'blackmail by a foreign power' may seem a bit far fetched, but the 'Independent on Sunday' (IoS) of 22 March 2015 carried a story of an attempt by Boss, the apartheid era South African security service, to blackmail Smith about sexual abuse in the 1970s.  A contemporaneous article in the Sunday Telegraph of 14 March 1976 refers to a 'dossier' prepared by MI5 claiming that South African business interests had mounted an operation to discredit the Liberal Party of which Smith was then the party Whip.  This included information about false allegations against Smith being circulated anonymously in Rochdale and London. 


More recent claims that there is 'independent evidence' that MI5 were 'suppressing' information about Smith at that time turn out to be just a recycling of the claims by Danczuk and Baker.  The Lib-Lab pact did not come into being until March 1977, a year after the Sunday Telegraph article.  If Robinson's inference is correct MI5 did not hold the Lancashire Police file on Smith in 1976. 
For those who want to believe in 'establishment cover ups' no amount of contrary explanation will ever suffice. But we are entitled to ask about the evidence they present in support of their case.   The 'evidence' presented in 'Smile for the Camera' is of the flimsiest kind, being largely assertions by the authors, or second and third hand gossip, resulting in a book which is little more robust than a wall of tissue paper, the only solid foundation being the work of David Bartlett and John Walker in 1979 with respect to Smith's activities at Cambridge House.  


Truly 'a lightweight potboiler'! 


Appendix (from RAP, May 1979) : 
'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:   
'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 my buttocks with a wet sponge.' 
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/11/cps-statement-in-relation-to-cyril-smith.html

http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sir-cyril-smith-corroboration-of.html#more

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-humbug-of-simon-danczuk.html

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-wasting-police-time.html

http://www.tomgriffin.org/SunTel14Mar76FP.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact#1977