Operation Clifton Further Discredits Danczuk

by Les May

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

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

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

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

A totally convincing story, but totally untrue.    

How do we know?    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to Publish Rochdale's Child Abuse Reports

Is there a cover-up going on in Greater Manchester?

by Les May

SOME three weeks after I originally wrote to him I have had a response from Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd.  A response to my e-mail, but not to my request:

‘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.’
Instead he directs me to an article in the Manchester Evening News which deals with the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed with the case against David Higgins who in April this year was charged with 18 counts of indecent assault and one count of attempt indecent assault of two boys under the age of 16.  http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/case-against-alleged-abuser-knowl-12048041
Lloyd is trying to conflate his response to the single case in which there was enough evidence against an individual to launch a prosecution, with the 13 cases where there was no realistic chance of a successful prosecution because there was no firm evidence.  So we still do not know whether he thinks the GMP investigation was done incompetently or not.  With support like this for the police service I’m glad I don’t work for GMP.
Like Danczuk he wants to talk about ‘victims’, even though there has not been a trial, or in Danczuk’s case, even in the absence of anyone being charged.  Unlike Danczuk he does not want to commit himself about how well Operation Jaguar was conducted.  He will neither reassure the public that the investigation was carried out to the highest standards nor will he dissociate himself from Danczuk’s wild comments about a ‘catalogue of failures’.  As Operation Jaguar is said to have cost half a million pounds this is simply not good enough.
We should not forget that not everyone who has had traumatic things happen to them necessarily wants ‘punishment’ of wrongdoers.  It may be that people simply need to have their side of the story heard and acknowledged, and have a burning sense of injustice when it is not.
For legal reasons that were entirely valid in1970, Cyril Smith never stood trial for indecently assaulting young men at Cambridge House. http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sir-cyril-smith-corroboration-of.html#more
But the detailed article which appeared in the Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) in May 1979 ensured that their story was heard.  That Cyril was able to continue as an MP for another 13 years was not due to him being ‘protected’ by the security services, nor due to David Steele ‘turning a blind eye’.  It was due to the fact that the press chose not to run the story.
In refusing to publish the Shepherd and Mellor reports Rochdale MBC are denying the men who were at the school in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and are now approaching forty and with families of their own, the opportunity to have the unsavoury things that were going on at the school publicly acknowledged.  Some people would say they are being denied an opportunity for ‘closure’.
I am not aware that Mr Danczuk is on record as urging RMBC to publish these reports though it has been suggested that he should.  Unless he does start to press for publication his continued reference to ‘victims’ at Knowl View will begin to look like crocodile tears.

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.

A Great Injustice & Rules of Evidence

by Les May

AN apology to Mr Harvey Proctor from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police may be something of a moral victory for him, but it will do little to help him take up the threads of his life again.  The clock cannot be put back to a time before he was suddenly thrust into the limelight by what can only be described as somewhat bizarre allegations against him.  

But it is all too easy to simply blame the police for what happened and ignore the fact that to some degree we have all contributed to the context in which this kind of misguided approach to investigating serious allegations could happen.  It’s a context in which Harvey Proctor, Paul Gambaccini, Cliff Richard and others, are seen as no more than ‘collateral damage’.

The ending of the 2015-2016 session of Parliament meant that Sir Keir Starmer’s Private Members Victims of Crime Etc (Rights, Entitlements and Related Matters) Bill never got further than its first reading.  Had it passed into law it would have further weakened the rights of an accused.  A victim would have been defined as a person who has suffered harm which was directly caused by a criminal offence or in some cases even a close relative would be treated as a victim.

‘As stipulated in the Bill, no complaint need be made or determination of guilt found in order for a “victim” to exist.  Most obviously, the question arises as to how a criminal offence can have occurred without the matter having been proved in court?’  

https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/comment/blogs/criminal-law-blog/a-critical-analysis-of-sir-keir-starmers-victims-of-crime-etc-rights-entitlements-and-related-matters-bill

Lord Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003 to 2008, took issue with the philosophy underpinning the Bill.  Speaking to the Today programme, he said:

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

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

And ‘basic fairness’ is an issue in the Harvey Proctor case because Starmer had already issued guidelines in 2013 which were supposed ‘to be applied to all cases where a sexual offence has been committed against a child or young person’.  (Note this interesting distinction between a ‘child’ and a ‘young person’.)

These include, ‘Arrangements for early consultation and joint work between police and prosecutors to agree a case strategy and address evidential issues head on.’

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_launches_guidelines_on_child_sexual_abuse/  

Were these guidelines followed?  Did the police and prosecutors agree a case strategy?  Were evidential issues addressed head on?

If so why is it only the police that are ‘in the dock’?  Why are we not seeing a similar apology from the CPS?  Or is it that the police chose to ignore Starmer’s 2013 guidelines about consulting with prosecutors at an early stage and fell into the very trap which Lord Macdonald so clearly sees as a likely outcome of Starmer’s more recent intervention?

But ranged against Lord Macdonald’s careful assessment we have assorted pressure groups determined to resist any change away from the present ‘believe the victim’ mentality and even hitch a ride on the bandwagon, though their link with the substantive issue of sexual abuse of children is tenuous. http://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/keir-starmer-announces-changes-to-criminal-justice-handling-

A month ago Paul Gambaccini and Sir Cliff Richard went to the House of Lords to lobby for a change in the law so that those who are accused of sexual abuse are guaranteed anonymity until and unless they are charged.  Lord Paddick, who was previously the Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Metropolitan Police, backs this change.

Two days later the writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote an article arguing against this change.  She quoted the lawyer Richard Scorer as saying ‘We have seen countless times how perpetrators isolate their victims and make them feel no one will believe them’.  But this is just an anecdote, an assertion which he feels no need to substantiate with quantitative evidence.  It’s  ‘Believe me I’m a lawyer!’

Alibhai-Brown describes him as a ‘specialist in this area’.  But if you probe just a little deeper you find that Scorer works at Pannones, part of Slater & Gordon, and co-authored the book ‘Child Abuse Compensation Claims’.  In other words his specialism is, broadly defined, in personal injury claims, which isn’t quite the same as being a specialist in preparing criminal proceedings against people accused of child abuse.

What Scorer does not mention is whether anonymity for people accused, but not charged, would have any impact upon his business as it would prevent lawyers signing up the people who made the allegation, as a client in a civil compensation case and prevent them ‘trawling’ for further clients who had not yet made a complaint.  Put this way it suggests that the present system is open to abuse by people seeking financial compensation.

Incidentally, if you check out the Slater and Gordon website you’ll find they are still running their April 2014 advert touting for business arising from claims of abuse at Knowl View school even though when these were investigated by the Greater Manchester Police in Operation Jaguar there was insufficient evidence to mount a prosecution. http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2014/04/allegations-of-abuse-against-cyril-smith-victims-seek-answers/

In arguing that naming people accused but not charged ensures that those claiming to have been abused have the confidence to come forward Alibhai-Brown ignores the 2013 guidance from the CPS about how such cases should be handled, which was designed to ensure that the police would take seriously every complaint of abuse.

For Alibhai-Brown, Harvey Proctor, Paul Gambaccini, Cliff Richard and others are just ‘collateral damage’.  As she puts it ‘We should be far more concerned about those who never dare tell than about the small number falsely accused.’  In other words she wants to prioritise the unknown and unknowable number of people who might be inhibited from coming forward, over people who we know will suffer greatly from being falsely accused.  Should people like Alibhai-Brown be allowed to have the last word on the question of naming suspects or is someone else going to speak out?

Is it possible that what we have seen in Operation Midland is what some people call ‘The Law of  Unintended Consequences’?  The 2013 guidelines were intended to reassure those who complained about abuse that their allegations would be taken seriously and properly investigated.  There is no obligation to call complainants ‘victims’ or ‘survivors’.  Did the journalists and pressure groups simply appropriate the terms because it suited their agenda to do so?   Did the police simply follow suit in an effort to appear ‘victim friendly’?  If they did the this lack of judgement has spectacularly backfired with Hogan-Howe’s apology.

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.