Tony Lloyd PCC: Is there a conflict of interest?

by Les May

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

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

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

If you were expecting this you would be disappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tony Lloyd PCC: The Silent Man!

by Les May

'The Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester has been elected by local people and is accountable for how crime and community safety is tackled throughout the region.  Your commissioner is Tony Lloyd.'

I HAVE taken this quote directly from the web page of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) at https://www.gmpcc.org.uk/about/
In other words Mr Lloyd was elected by the people of Greater Manchester and one would assume is therefore to be considered in some degree to be accountable to them.  But just how accountable is he really?  Does he act like a man who thinks he is accountable?
At the beginning of October my local paper carried an article with the headline 'MP slams police "failings" as abuse inquiry closes.'  The MP in question was of course Simon Danczuk, MP for Rochdale.  According to the ITV website his words were 'I believe that there has been a catastrophic catalogue of failings by Greater Manchester Police during the investigation of these crimes.'
Responding to this the GMP Police Federation Chairman Ian Hanson said:
'Yet again we see a Manchester MP launching an ill-informed attack upon police officers in an attempt to raise their own media profile.'  
When Danczuk repeated his criticism Ian Hanson responded as follows:
'He continues to criticise GMP for its work on historical sexual abuse allegations.
I do not now intend to get involved in a public slanging match with Simon Danczuk over this matter.
Instead I will publicly call him out to deliver the firm evidence that he bases his criticism of GMP on to my office by 12 noon on Monday - and I will personally deliver it to the IPCC.
'If as, I know, there is no firm evidence, then he should back out of this with what little credibility he has got left in tact. His behaviour is not helping the victims of this terrible abuse.
The people of Rochdale expect better.'
As Northern Voices reported on 28th, October Danczuk neither delivered any firm evidence nor accepted the invitation to attend the Police Federation meeting which was held the previous night.  But we do know that the Police & Crime Commissioner, Tony Lloyd, did attend the meeting as Northern Voices had a reporter present inside the Renaissance Hotel in Blackfriars when Lloyd arrived in the lift, and he says that downstairs 'You could have cut the atmosphere with a knife.'   http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/dodger-danczuk-doesnt-deliver.html
Now Danczuk has form when it comes to accusing a police force of failing to carry out its duty properly. This is what Mr. Danczuk had to say in his book about the failings of Northamptonshire police with regard to Cyril Smith:
‘His car had been pulled over on the motorway and officers had found a box of child porn in his boot.  The police were naturally disgusted and wanted to press charges.  But then a phone call was made from London and he was released without charge. Senior officers had threatened the officers involved with dismissal if he was not released immediately. The mood was tense and sullen as officers stood back while Cyril breezily walked past them to freedom.  All the staff who knew about it were threatened with the Official Secrets Act if they discussed the matter any further. Once again Cyril walked out of the police station knowing he was a protected man.'
A lovely story with just one problem, it wasn’t true! http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-humbug-of-simon-danczuk.html
So how did the PCC for Northamptonshire respond to this attempt to blame his officers?  Well he wasn’t pleased with Messrs Danczuk and Baker to say the least.  He went to the trouble of appearing on the BBC Regional programme Look East when amongst other things he said that his force had been ‘maligned’ that ‘The force should expect an apology.  Northamptonshire Police are not guilty of covering up a crime and indeed letting someone go on to perpetrate more.’ and then the killer line, 'Everything in that book's got to be evidence-led and -based, otherwise you are alerting people to the wrong information.'
And what has our very own PPC Tony Lloyd had to say in defence of GMP and its officers in response to Danczuk’s attack?  So far as I can tell the answer is absolutely nothing.  Now if I’m wrong about this I am willing to hold up my hand and admit it.  But I searched through the news section GMPPC website as far back as the beginning of October and could find nothing.
So how about it Mr Lloyd?  Your electorate and the officers of GMP deserve an explanation.

Dodger Danczuk Doesn't Deliver!

by Les May

Last night, as predicted Simon Danczuk didn't deliver his evidence of historic child abuse to the meeting of the Greater Manchester Police Federation at the Renaissance Hotel as requested by Chief Inspector Ian Hanson chairman of the Joint Branch Board of the GMP Police Federation.  Instead Tony Lloyd, the Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner, turned up to explain to the serving police officers present what was going on as the disgraced Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, indulges himself in attacking the police for failing to dig-up enough evidence to satisfy the Crown Prosecution Service.  Below Les May questions Simon Danczuk's tactics in attacking the police. (Editor)

THE response by Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk to Chief Inspector Hanson’s challenge to him

'.... I will publicly call him out to deliver the firm evidence that he bases his criticism of GMP on to my office by 12 noon on Monday - and I will personally deliver it to the IPCC.’

at https://twitter.com/hashtag/knowlView?src=hash  and at http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/danczuk-ducks-out-of-debate.html  was entirely predictable.   

He is trying to use the same tactic which was so successful when he appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee in July 2014, when instead of being questioned about his book ‘Smile for the Camera’  he managed to get the spotlight shifted onto Leon Brittan.  Now he wants to shift the spotlight from his inability to provide the evidence asked for, onto debating what he calls the ‘poor policing around Rochdale’. 

This is just a smoke screen to hide the fact that he does not have any evidence to back up his claims about Knowl View.  He knows perfectly well that Chief Inspector Hanson is speaking for the GMP members of the Police Federation who he feels have been very unfairly criticised by Danczuk.  Chief Inspector Hanson is not, and does not represent himself as, speaking for GMP.   

To put it bluntly Danczuk’s claims:

‘Everyone knows that child abuse took place on a frightening scale at Knowl View’ and ‘We've seen shocking reports documenting this...’ are bunkum.  ‘Everyone knows...’, isn’t evidence and Danczuk continually repeating it does not make it evidence. 

And no, we have not seen ‘shocking reports’ because the two reports which might throw some light on what was happening at Knowl View, the 1991 report of Philip Shepherd and the 1992 report of Valerie Mellor, have not been published by Rochdale Council and it shows no inclination to let us see them for ourselves.   

I have seen a copy of the Shepherd report and whilst it is certainly ‘shocking’, what it refers to is sexual activity between the boys at the school and to some boys who were visited Rochdale town centre accompanied by care staff, ‘cottaging’ at the Smith Street toilets.   

In other words what it reveals is poor supervision by some care staff.  Whether the responsibility for this being allowed to happen should lie with the care staff involved. the headteacher, the governors or the Director of Education is a subject for discussion after the reports have been published in full.   

As to what Danczuk means by his comment, ‘...ensure the public understand how the police reach decisions regarding serious crimes like child abuse’, I do not understand unless he is trying to blame Chief Inspector Hanson’s colleagues for the decision that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone, which was in fact taken by the CPS.   

I hope that Chief Inspector Hanson and his GMP colleagues in the Police Federation will keep the pressure on Danczuk to produce the ‘very specific information that backs up his comments’, not let him shift the debate onto things which suit his agenda of getting himself back in the limelight and will publicise as widely as possible his inability or unwillingness to ‘put his money where his mouth is.

If Danczuk wants to do something useful he could try putting pressure on his friends in Rochdale Council to publish the Shepherd and Mellor reports.  Until these have been published he should refrain from making any more inflammatory comments about Knowl View.

Danczuk Ducks Out of Debate!

SIMON DANCZUK wrote an undated response on House of Common's note-paper to Inspector Ian Hanson's request for an open debate in a Manchester Hotel which we reproduced:  see below or at   Simon DanczukVerified account ‏@SimonDanczuk Oct 21

My response to Ian Hanson, of @GMPFederation, refusal to publicly debate poor policing around #Rochdale child abuse #knowlView

Dear Mr Hanson,

Thank you for letter regarding a debate on the recent investigation into historic child abuse at Knowl View residential school.

Unfortunately, you have failed to grasp the sprit of my request.  This was driven by the public interest rather than satisfying your members.  We really need to move away from an inward looking, defensive and institutional approach and ensure the public understand how the police reach decisions regarding serious crimes like child abuse.  That’s why a wider debate is needed.

With that in mind, it is clearly not appropriate for me to debate simply with a lot of police officers as part of a formal police meeting.  The perpetuates the problem of a mind-set which thinks the police doesn’t have to answer to the wider public.

It is my understanding that you were asked earlier today to appear on a television news programme tonight to debate this issue with me – but you refused.

Could I ask why you reached this decision?  It would habve been an opportunity to speak to the public at large in a critically important matter where it’s acknowledged there’s low public confidence.

Simon Danczuk

Tonight, Danczuk in the Lion's Den?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These claims were not based upon interviews with men who told him this had happened to them. They were based upon what had appeared in a 1991 report sent to Rochdale Education and Social Service departments which said nothing of the sort and a statement attributed to his ‘witness’.  In Danczuk’s own words on page 109 we read:  'For many years he was oblivious to what was happening in the school – until he was promoted to head of care and began to realise that things weren't quite right.'  This was in 1994, when he read the 1991 report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Gummer’s comment in January 2015:

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

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

Danczuk given ultimation to cough-up by police

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

******