Showing posts with label Sexual Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual Abuse. Show all posts

Friday, 30 April 2021

Noel Clarke: ITV drops drama Viewpoint finale after allegations

TODAY ITV has decided to pull the final episode of the drama Viewpoint after allegations of sexual harassment were made against its star, Noel Clarke.
The broadcaster said it was 'no longer appropriate to broadcast the final episode' on Friday as planned.
Sky has also "halted" its work with Clarke, including on the fourth series of crime drama Bulletproof.
The Kidulthood and Doctor Who star, 45, has said he "vehemently" denies "any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing".
In a statement on Thursday, he said he intended to "defend myself against these false allegations".
The Guardian newspaper reported allegations from 20 women, all of whom knew Clarke in a professional capacity, on Thursday.
On Friday, ITV said it had "a zero tolerance policy to bullying, harassment and victimisation".
"We strongly believe that everyone deserves to work in a supportive and safe environment," it added.
"In light of the very serious nature of the allegations against Noel Clarke raised by 20 women in the Guardian's report, ITV has decided it is no longer appropriate to broadcast the final episode of the drama Viewpoint on ITV main channel this evening."
However, the finale will be available on its streaming service ITV Hub from Friday night for a limited time "for any viewers who wish to seek it out, and watch its conclusion".
Clarke played a surveillance detective in the show, which has been on ITV every evening this week. It was watched by 3.5 million people on Thursday.
He is also known for his role in Bulletproof, which Sky commissioned for a fourth series in January.
But following the allegations, Sky said: "Effective immediately, we have halted Noel Clarke's involvement in any future Sky productions."
The broadcaster said it had not received any reports of sexual misconduct or harassment during or since the show's production. "Sky stands against all forms of sexual harassment and bullying and takes any allegations of this nature extremely seriously," it added.
Bulletproof's production company Vertigo Films also said: "Effective immediately, Noel Clarke is removed from any Vertigo Films production."
A spokesperson for the company said it had "launched an urgent investigation to find out if any [alleged incidents] apply to any Vertigo Films productions", but that "no issues have been flagged to us".
Fellow Bulletproof actor Ashley Walters responded to the allegations against his co-star by saying he was "in shock and deeply saddened by what I have heard on a multitude of levels".
He said he "could never condone behaviour of this nature" and while "Noel has been a friend and a colleague for several years, I cannot stand by and ignore these allegations".
He added: "Sexual harassment, abuse and bullying have no place in our industry." In his statement on Thursday, Clarke added: "In a 20-year career, I have put inclusivity and diversity at the forefront of my work and never had a complaint made against me. "If anyone who has worked with me has ever felt uncomfortable or disrespected, I sincerely apologise."
********************************************************

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

Come Back Dominic All Is Forgiven by Les May

WHILST the strategy of attempting to argue that Mr. Cummings' conduct was within government guidelines is insulting and distressing to those who have made terrible sacrifices by staying indoors away from family, it also clears the "we're all in this together" smokescreen to reveal a political plane where different rules apply.
These are the words of Kirsty Brimelow QC in late May 2020. Whilst apologists like Boris Johnson, Grant Shaps and Matt Hancock took a different line these words are probably a good reflection of the feelings of a majority of people in this country.
On 6 January this year protesters at an anti-lockdown demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament were arrested. The day after, page 10 of the Daily Telegraph carried a large picture, 30x20cm, of an Asian lady being handcuffed behind her back by two police officers wearing surgical type masks. The male officer was wearing a body camera.
Above it was a six column wide article headed ‘Breach the rules and face fine, police warn’. Below it was another article also over six columns by Martin Hewitt who chairs the National Police Chief’s Council which included the words ‘… everyone should understand the rules in their area. We know, for example, that large gatherings should not be happening. Forces will continue to bear down on that very small minority who flagrantly and selfishly breach the regulations.’
Even the editorial in the Telegraph, which largely speaking opposes the lockdown, could not manage to produce an argument against this which went much further than complaining that it might penalise old people who might find the need to sit down on a convenient bench whilst taking their exercise.
On Saturday a bunch of women congregated on Clapham Common and four people were arrested for public order and coronavirus regulation breaches. They had gathered after an event organised by Reclaim These Streets was cancelled following talks with the Metropolitan Police, which said it would be in breach of coronavirus rules. In other words they knew exactly what they were doing and now are complaining they were badly treated, though it is difficult to see that they were being treated any differently to the lady at the demo on 6 January. As the character Fletcher said in the BBC TV series Porridge, ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime’.
Let’s not confuse what happened at Clapham Common with the very real threat to our right to use our streets and open spaces to protest. Since the murder of Sarah Everard ego-centric women have exploited what, by its very rarity, the random killing of a young woman walking home after dark, is a devastating and momentous crime, in order to pursue their own agenda against men and trying to spread a of fear of us amongst women. Would it have been even a nine day wonder if it had been a young man killed in a similar circumstances?
If those who support the idea of making misogyny a ‘hate crime’ get their way the same force that is now watching calls for its Commissioner to resign for the way that the Clapham Common incident was was dealt with, will be handed the job of policing the interaction of men and women in London’s streets. Will there be similar outrage if men find themselves faced with on the spot fines, and being handcuffed if they get stroppy, for an overheard comment that a touchy woman takes exception to?
If we are going to swallow the story that the police were wrong to intervene at a gathering when the people there knew it was in contravention of coronavirus rules, then we should be prepared to say we are sorry for all the nasty things we said about Dominic Cummings. The same rules that apply to me apply to women!
*********************************************************

Friday, 2 October 2020

The Wrong Colour Of Black? by Les May

IN November 2018, I wrote an article for Northern Voices with the title ‘The Silent Sisterhood’. It raised the question of why feminist politicians and journalists had so little to say about the plight of Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman who had fallen foul of Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws, had spent eight years in jail, had finally been declared innocent by the Supreme Court, and was still being held in custody so that the court’s decision could be ‘reviewed’ as a sop to the mobs demanding that she be hanged.
As I pointed out at the time there has never been any shortage of white, affluent, western feminists ready to discover examples of ‘misogyny’. Just another case of selective outrage it would seem. Is it going to happen all over again with the Black Lives Matter supporters displaying their own unique brand of selective outrage?
On Tuesday a 22-year-old woman died of severe injuries in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh after being gang raped. The same day another 19-year-old woman died two weeks after she was gang-raped and strangled by upper caste men. Both were Dalits and in India's caste-based hierarchy Dalits are ranked the lowest and have been referred to as ‘untouchables’ in the past. Last month, a 13 year old Dalit girl was raped and murdered in the same state. Last year, two Dalit children were allegedly beaten to death after defecating in the open.
As with religious minorities in Pakistan where Christians like Asia Bibi are persecuted and young Hindu women forcibly converted to Islam before being married to older men, India’s caste system is structural discrimination because although in both cases technically illegal, it is built into the fabric of those societies.
Concern is expressed about Facebook, Instagram and Twitter becoming echo chambers reinforcing the existing attitudes and prejudices of their users. We hear nothing about how the choice of issues by the mainstream media determines what is ‘news’ and what is not; what causes outrage and what does not. We all know and can remember the name of George Floyd because his murder has been extensively covered in the press and on television. Unlike the USA, India and Pakistan are not part of the affluent West where ‘people are just like us’ and those of us who happen to have been born with a white skin can be made to feel guilty about events which happened a long time ago and in which we played no part.
Will anyone be asked if they will ‘take a knee’ in memory of these two young Dalit women; will some ‘Royal’ chip in his four penn’orth? I doubt it; selective outrage is the order of the day!
*****************************************************************************

Wednesday, 3 July 2019

Myth-busting!

by Les May

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In October 2017 Harriet said, I think that the absolute key to this, when I think about my own experience and think about the Harvey Weinstein thing, is we need a system of whistle-blowing, anonymous whistle-blowing’. So no anonymity there Harriet? How did this woman get to be Solicitor-General and caretaker leader of the Labour party?


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

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

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



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


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

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

Thursday, 14 March 2019

Knowl View School: A mother complains

ON Tuesday the 12th, March, the mother of a lad who was resident at Knowl View School, commented on a post entitled 'Midsummer Murders & Knowl View School'.

She wrote: 
'I AM that mother and I can guarantee that story is TRUE.the names of the 2 staff members are available on request. I have minutes of a meeting on 8/5/1992 which clearly states "ASHWORTH JUNIOR UNIT INVOLVED IN SMITH STREET TOILETS " and at the side of this sentence is the comment "KEEP QUIET" the IICSA report found no cover up in Rochdale.
'Of that's not a cover up I'll eat my hat..or yours' 

**********
 On the 13th, March, she followed up by drawing Les May's attention to an error in his account and today Mr May's original report was ammended:
'Plus an incorrect part of the comment by Les May ( who I have never met) is where he states the second member of staff backed up the perpetrator..  I never said this, and the man was never involved in any discussion I had with the school about the incident.
'So any information Les May has about me or my son is relayed to him through another person..chinese whispers.  He has never contacted me directly to hear the story or look at my documental evidence...  I guess it's easy to come to the wrong conclusion when you're hell bent on putting forward your own agenda.  Has he ever thought why I would continue my fight for justice for the knowl view boys for 25 years if what I say isn't true?  If he thinks it's about financial compensation that path could have been trodden 25 years ago, that has never been a consideration in my fight.'

Les May gives his reply to the mother concerned below:

MANY of the claims about what happened at Knowl View school are based upon assertions by individuals with no good evidence to back them up. The 2014 book by Danczuk and Baker is a prime example of this.   As I had no intention of falling into the same trap I made clear in my article that the account I gave had been relayed to me by third parties.  I also made it clear that I was not asserting that it was incontrovertibly true.

It would appear that my caution in doing this was justified as the accuracy of the account I gave of what I understood had been said has now been disputed. Nothing in what I wrote could possibly lead anyone to believe that I was suggesting that there was any financial motivation behind this story.

Had I not believed that the story recounted to me was essentially true I would not have gone to the trouble of writing a piece pointing out that when the word abuse is mentioned there is an immediate assumption that it should always have the word ‘sexual’ in front of it, and that this assumption is not always correct. There are other things which constitute abuse.

I will repeat what I said in my piece:  If this story is true and if it is typical of what was going on at the school, then this is the real scandal of what happened at Knowl View, not some vague innuendo about Cyril Smith being involved in sexual abuse at the school.   We will never know whether events like this were commonplace, or even if they happened, unless men now in their later thirties are willing to break their silence.  If they feel they want justice it will be too late when the perpetrators are dead. (my emphasis)

**********

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

Midsummer Murders & Knowl View School

by Les May


THE TV land of Midsummer is a fictional place of pretty villages and dark deeds. People who always like to grab the moral high ground may complain there aren’t enough non-white faces, but no-one can complain that the stories are not intricate with a wealth of suspects.

Blood Will Out, which was episode 4 of season 2, involved an ex-military landowner, a bunch of Travellers led by another ex-military man who obviously had a grudge against the landowner who in turn was determined to drive the Travellers from the village and a man, who had in the past exchanged wives with the landowner.   His daughter had followed her mother.  When the landowner is found dead from the blast of a shotgun Barnaby and Troy have the task of sorting through the list of suspects.


We finally discover that it was landowner’s step daughter who had pulled the trigger. Her motive, she was being abused. But there was a twist in the tail. Barnaby assumed, as you probably did, that it was sexual abuse.  It wasn’t.  The victim got his way in the family by beating her with a leather belt.   He tried to do it once too often and got shot.

After the publication of the book Smile for the Camera by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker.  in April 2014 I devoted much of the next two and a half years to untangling the truth and falsehoods in stories about Cyril Smith that this pair were telling.   My basic concern was that they were conflating two separate issues.   Smith’s antics at Cambridge House hostel in the early 1960s with the goings on at Knowl View school in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Solid evidence of Smith’s antics at Cambridge House was published in 1979 in Rochdale's Alternative Paper (RAP) when Smith was very much alive and able to sue if RAP got it wrong.  He never did.  The unsavoury events at Knowl View were sexual activity between the boys, some of it coercive.

These were detailed in a report to Education and Social Service officers, the ‘Shepherd report’ and confirmed in the ‘Mellor report’. The significant contents of the former were later published in an article which appeared in the Independent on Sunday in September 1995.








Danczuk and Baker muddied the waters about what really happened at Knowl View.   As a result any subsequent ‘evidence’ from individuals is tainted.  They did it by conflating two separate issues, Cyril Smith’s antics at Cambridge House and the reports about what went on at Knowl View. Long before their book was published we had TV documentaries based on Danczuk’s unsubstantiated claims about Smith’s involvement at Knowl View, claims which were not made in the Independent on Sunday in September 1995, though in both cases the source seems to have been the same.   Without throwing in the Knowl View connection they had only the stories that we already knew about Smith’s antics at Cambridge House when he was a member of the Labour party.  This story, regurgitated from the May 1979 edition of RAP, would not have filled a book and without a book there would have been no lucrative contract.

We are seeing this same conflation again. It is happening in the local press where lazy journalists, who cannot be bothered to sort the fact from the fiction simply recycle the same old stuff ad nauseum, Cambridge House, Knowl View, Cyril Smith equals a story to fill a corner of the paper.

And it is happening again with a local parents group which are managing to conflate Cambridge House, the grooming and sexual abuse of girls by a group of asian men, and the unsavoury events at Knowl View.


Danczuk’s book muddied the waters about Knowl View. Has this led us into making the same mistake as Barnaby made in the Midsummer Murders drama? Have we been led along the path of assuming that any abuse by adults at Knowl View was sexual in nature?

I am prompted to ask this because of a story which was passed to me by two people I have known well for many years. It was recounted to them by the mother of a boy who had been a pupil at Knowl View.

He had run away from the school and made his way home.   She telephoned the school and said she would take him back in a little while.  Before she could do this two burly men appeared at her door. When she opened it her son ran upstairs. The men said they had come to take her son back.  One man went upstairs. The boy screamed.   When she looked her son was being held by his legs and dragged down the stairs.   She complained to the school.  Nothing was done about it.

If this story is true and if it is typical of what was going on at the school, then this is the real scandal of what happened at Knowl View, not some vague innuendo about Cyril Smith being involved in sexual abuse at the school.  We will never know whether events like this were commonplace, or even if they happened, unless men now in their later thirties are willing to break their silence. If they feel they want justice it will be too late when the perpetrators are dead.

***********

Wednesday, 17 October 2018

On Listening To Woman’s Hour

by Les May

ON Tuesday morning a friend telephoned me to suggest that having recently written about problems with the Gender Recognition Act, I might like to listen to BBC Woman’s Hour where the proposed changes were to be discussed.


I assumed that the ‘Karen White’ case in which a man called David Thompson, who had previously been jailed for life for rape, had been housed in a women’s prison after claiming he identified as female and had gone on to sexually assault two female prisoners, would be discussed.  It got a mention.

I assumed that someone would point out that the prison service had a duty of care to the female prisoners.  No one did.  Nor did anyone point out that the decision to move him to a women’s prison was made by an anonymous ‘local transgender board, though much was made of the fact that under the current Gender Recognition Act (2004) the decision about whether a certificate is issued is made by an anonymous board.

I assumed that someone would point out the absurdity of the prosecutor continuing to refer to White as ‘she’, as in ‘Her penis was in her hand and she was winking at the victim.’  (There may be a spelling mistake here.) No one did.

The problem it seems is MEN! No woman is safe on the streets. We men don’t need to use the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to find Machiavellian ways to assault women. We’re at it all the time.  That’s why they need ‘safe spaces’ like the ‘snowflakes’ who inhabit our universities.  And there was me thinking that in the context of the GRA what women need is ‘privacy’.


The women taking part in this programme all wanted to sound ‘cool’.  They did not want anyone ‘calling them out’ for voicing an unpopular opinion such as, We cannot let the demands of individuals who identify as trans override the need for others to maintain their own sense of privacy and dignity.’ Or ‘A person’s sex still matters.’

That’s what you are going to get when the only people giving their opinion are happy to say that their contributions are ‘academic’. These women were drawn from too small a stratum of society. Perhaps this was intentional. It wouldn’t do to have have some random woman saying things that would generate complaints.

Why has any discussion of possible changes to the GRA by Woman’s Hour been left until three days before the consultation ends? Must be a male conspiracy.

**********

Sunday, 29 October 2017

Richard Farnell: Something to hide?

WHEN in June 2014 Rochdale MBC had begun a council-commissioned inquiry is into whether there was a town hall cover-up relating to possible sex abuse at Knowl View, the late Jim Dobbin,  then Labour MP for Heywood & Middleton, said it was the ‘wrong time’ for Richard Farnell to take power as leader of the Rochdale Council.  Mr Dobbin then reminded us that it was Richard Farnell, who had just taken over was also leader in the early 1990s when the Knowl View sex abuse scandal was first being investigated.

At that time Mr Dobbin told the Manchester Evening News:  
I don’t think it’s very wise at this particular time, particularly with the inquiry going on into Knowl View.
Richard was leader at the time these accusations were being made, so I don’t think it’s a very clever thing for Richard to do and if he had spoken to me about it I would have said so.”

This week, before the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, Councillor Richard Farnell blamed senior officers for the scandal, which he said had only come to his attention in 2014.

Councillor Farnell had also been leader between 1986 and 1992, when boys in the council-run Knowl View school were being subjected to horrendous sexual abuse, including rape.

He went on to tell the inquiry - which is investigating institutionalised abuse across the country - repeatedly that he had never heard of any allegations relating to the school until recently, adding:
 'I am not prepared to accept personal responsibility for failing to take action in this matter.'

In a remarkable testimony to the national child abuse inquiry, Councillor Richard Farnell blamed senior officers for not having brief him of the scandal.

Coun Farnell was continually asked about his knowledge of the events by Brian Altman QC, who went on to point out that his own director of education, the director of social services, the chair of education and opposition members were all on record as all having been aware of the allegations.
Yet, Councillor Farnell has still insisted he had never been briefed.

This was a week in which an ex-Labour group chief whip councillor Peter Joinson accused the Rochdale council leader Richard Farnell of 'not telling the truth' to the child abuse inquiry, and of giving 'conflicting accounts' over the reports about sexual abuse at the Knowl View residential school in Norden, Rochdale.  And in turn Councillor Farnell went on to accuse Mr Joinson of faking a note, claiming it was an attempt to smear him owing to internal disputes within the local Labour Party in Rochdale.

In these circumstances of internal warfare in the local Labour Party ought the national Labour Party to be considering if it should suspend the local party?

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

Fake News or What?


By Les May

‘EX-MP set up deal to keep sex abuse secret’ screams the half page headline on the front page of today’s Rochdale Observer. Look inside and it’s just a claim made by Martin Digan to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.   A claim for which by his own admission he has absolutely no evidence.

Digan claims that a deal was struck between Cyril Smith, the late Jim Dobbin and Colin Lambert, in which Smith would ‘keep quiet’ about ‘a serious offence against a child in a public toilet’ supposedly perpetrated by an un-named Rochdale Council leader, in return for Dobbin and Lambert keeping quiet about sexual abuse at Knowl View.  He also claims to have given a ‘dossier’ about the abuse to Dobbin.  As is all too frequent when claims are made about Smith and Knowl View we are kept in the dark about when these events are supposed to have taken place.  And ‘when’ is critical in evaluating the likelihood that any of this might be true.

We’ll return to the ‘dossier’ later, but just to clarify, Jim Dobbin was Labour MP for Heywood and Middleton from 1997 to his untimely death in 2014.  He had previously been a Rochdale councillor from 1984, Labour leader from 1994 and Leader of the Council from 1996.  Colin Lambert was a Labour councillor and worked in Jim Dobbin’s constituency office.  He later became leader of the Labour group and delivered a stunning electoral result in 2014 before finding himself displaced by the present incumbent.

Now we’ve met Mr Digan before. In the section of Simon Danczuk’s 2014 book where he claims that Smith was sexually abusing the pupils at Knowl View Special School, Digan is the prime witness. I say ‘witness’, but in fact Danczuk writes that although he had been at the school since the late 1970’s he ‘was oblivious to what was happening at the school’ ‘Oblivious’ or not, it didn’t stop him claiming in Danczuk’s book that ‘boys were sold to paedophile gangs’.  Nor can we consider him to be the most reliable of witnesses.   The story about an event at Knowl View he told in a Radio 4 programme was subtly different from the same story which appears in Danczuk’s book.

As for the ‘dossier’, it’s a favourite term in the Cyril Smith/Knowl View saga, which seems to cover everything from a handwritten note of a short telephone conversation twenty years earlier, upwards. It consisted of copies of two reports one made by Aids worker Philip Shepherd and the other by psychologist Valerie Mellor, which Digan found in the Headmaster’s office and which had previously been submitted to Rochdale Council in 1991 and 1992.

So how likely is it that Digan’s claim about a ‘deal’ has any merit?   In cases like this it helps to ask who stood to gain? Certainly not Labour. From 1986 to 1992 Labour was running the council.  Any revelations about sexual abuse at Knowl View would have have had to be answered by them.  So why would they need any deal as an inducement to keep quiet?  I have seen the Shepherd report and can state categorically that it makes no reference to Smith.  Though I know the contents of the Mellor report I have not seen it in full, but I have been assured by someone who sees themselves as fighting for ‘justice’ for the ex-pupils of Knowl View that it makes no reference to Smith.

Digan likes to be seen as a ‘whistleblower’. Had he confined himself to trying to get the Shepherd and Mellor reports published and in the public domain so that we could see for ourselves what had been happening at Knowl View I would have felt that such a label was justified as that is what I want to see myself because these reports contain information about some very unsavoury goings on between some of the pupils at Knowl View. But, as his present claims show, he hasn’t.

In Danczuk’s book he lets himself be used as a tool for Danczuk to fashion his claims about Cyril Smith and Knowl View school. Now he’s gone freelance.   But apart from the story of ‘a deal’, the best he can come up with at the inquiry is that he had often seen Smith bouncing young boys on his knee during parties held on the premises to coincide with governors meetings.  So no ‘smoking gun‘ then?

No doubt he told the police all this when he was interviewed as part of the ‘Operation Clifton’ investigation.   The fact that the police concluded there was no evidence of a ‘cover up’ at Knowl View suggests in the absence of evidence of ‘a deal’ they did not take take the claim seriously. Claims like this just make the inquiry look like an amateurish shambles.

Monday, 16 October 2017

Abused lad claims he was punished for whistleblowing on Cyril Smith

A FORMER student at the Knowl View part-time residential school for boys has claimed that he was punished by his headmaster for accusing the then Governor of the school Cyril Smith of child abuse, the ongoing inquiry into abuse heard today.
The witness, who cannot be named, told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, that Cyril Smith touched him inappropriately when he 10-years-old in the staff room at Knowl View.
He was placed at the residential school for boys in 1969 in a shared dormitory called 'Nirvana' with older boys.
He said, that the then headmaster, John Turner, 'spanked him on the backside' in front of the other boys in the school gym.  And he added that Mr. Turner accused him of 'trying to ruin the man's career'.
He was sent to other institutions, he believed as another punishment.
He later returned to Knowl View before leaving aged 16.
The witness claimed he was sexually assaulted by other older lads at the school.
******

Sunday, 15 October 2017

Don't Short Circuit Justice!


 Harvey Weinstein & Natural Justice
by Les May

ON Thursday morning as we sat sipping our coffee on Todmorden Inside Market my wife commented ‘It seems to be open season on Harvey Weinstein’.  As I had never heard of him I could only say ‘Who’s he’?

My ignorance was short lived.   Bang on the front page of my paper was a picture of a somewhat unprepossessing chap, with a younger woman on each arm, which raised in my mind the question of whether they had first been attracted to him for his good looks.

My wife was right.  After several actresses had accused him of making unwanted sexual advances to them it seemed the journalistic equivalent of the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, plus uncle Tom Cobley and all, immediately decided the women must be telling the truth and decided to ‘give him a good kicking’.   To add an element of farce Harvey decided to check into ‘rehab’ for treatment for sex addiction.

It wasn’t just the journalists. ‘Our Treeza’ decided to get in on the act too.   There was talk of him losing his British CBE and the Oscar board have convened an ‘emergency meeting’.   Phew!

But it’s not all bad news for Harvey.  He got lucky; the police in Britain and the USA have said they will investigate.    That means his accusers will have to make formal statements.  If they are telling porkies they’ll be found out.  He’ll know exactly what he is accused of.  He’ll be innocent until proven guilty. The women will have to interrupt their ‘busy schedules’ to turn up in court.  The legal process will take its course.   (Actually I don’t believe that last sentence; it will end up with a plea bargain.   Followed by a lot of articles about how ‘the system’ let down women yet again.)

Unfortunately it’s not just where ‘celebs’ are involved that there is an eagerness to short circuit the protection the law affords both to the accuser and the accused in interpersonal disputes where ultimately it boils down to nothing more than ‘his word against hers’.

It is becoming the norm that in universities, larger companies, trades unions and the like, these kinds of dispute are dealt with internally in what can most charitably be described as the most amateurish way, by people who have little grasp of the rules of evidence or much concern for natural justice.

Natural justice really boils down to common sense.  Here are some ground rules.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  In other words no-one has to ‘prove’ their innocence.
The accused person should be informed of the specific charges against them and the name of their accuser.
The accused person should have the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and vice versa.
The same goes for any witnesses, be they for the accuser or for theaccused. If an organisation uses a panel of people to investigate an incident, then a different panel of people should be involved in assessing that evidence and coming to a judgement, and the evidence collected should be available to both parties.

As I observed earlier natural justice is common sense.  It’s about being fair and being seen to be fair. Anything that fails the test of fairness, isn’t justice.

Friday, 13 October 2017

Unite replies in Alec McFadden case

Alec McFadden v Unite the Union 

 Northern Voices contacted the Unite Press Office
for a reply to Alec McFadden's press statement, and for
Unite's interpretaion of the Trade Union certification
officer's ruling.  The union's reply is published in full below:

Hi Brian

Gail forwarded me your email seeking a response to Mr McFadden’s press release. Please find our response below.
A Unite spokesman said: “Unite does not tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination and is committed to equality and fairness for all. The decision by the Certification Officer was based on a procedural and technical challenge and does not appear to make any difference to the findings of the investigation that found Mr McFadden to have a case to answer. Unite will consider the full judgement when it is delivered and assess whether it is appropriate to recharge Mr McFadden under our disciplinary rules.”
All the best
Alex

Alex Flynn
Head of media and campaigns
Unite the union

Friday, 16 December 2016

How to be an Inmate?


Michael Burke must prepare his own narrative for cell-mates

by Brian Bamford – a former inmate at Strangeways HMP
IF Michael Burke, who was yesterday sentenced to 15-years jail having been found guilty of raping his own sister 'Selfie Queen' Karen Danczuk as a child, and sexually assaulting two other girls, is to avoid himself being brutalised and possibly raped in the British prison system, he must now be carefully preparing his own narrative to relate to the prison community on the wings. 
Only yesterday the Manchester Evening News (MEN) carried a story by a prison officer at Strangeways notorious Victorian prison in Manchester in which the unnamed source said 'staff are living in fear of violence and nothing is being done to stop inmates using drugs and mobile phones'.
'Out of Sight, Out of Mind'
English people tend to adopt the view of 'Out of sight, out of mind!' with regard to their own prison system, and the anonymous source told the MEN that 'It is clear the home secretary does not understand the issues staff face daily'.
The prison officer is reported to have said in a letter that 'prisoners have no respect for authority, are violent to fellow inmates and staff and take drugs such as spice.'
Furthermore, he wrote:  'There have been several incidents at HMP Manchester where staff have been threatened by prisoners and governors have done nothing to protect the staff.'
'Notoriety' of Defendant and 'Fame' of Complainant
Defending Burke, Nicholas Walker QC said Burke had suffered a downfall of a 'very public nature'.  And Mr. Walker added:  'It's a feature of this case he can't enjoy the luxury of anonymity as the others may enjoy'.  
The judge, Mr Justice Gilbart, told Mr. Walker QC that he was not sentencing Mr. Burke on the 'because of his notoriety' in the media but based of the evidence presented in Court.  Mr Justice Gilbart said of Mrs. Danczuk that though she was 'well known' the Court will protect those in the media, and she had been active as a Councillor. 
Karen Danczuk, the estranged wife of the disgraced Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk, had claimed her mother was distant, that her her father worked nights, and that her brother Michael had begun grooming her from the age of six for sex, before getting into bed and raping her from the age of nine as other siblings slept. 
Mr. Justice Goldbart, handing down the sentence to the defendant:  'Whether she (Karen Danczuk) was nine, ten or 11 at the date of the first rape is not clear, but on any view she was a young girl who not reached puberty.  After she had endured your attentions up to the age of 11 she stood up to you, you didn't touch her again.
'You have shown not a shred of remorse in your defence you spent much of your time claiming she had orchestrated a conspiracy against you, a claim I regard as entirely absurd.  Your second victim was a naïve 12-year-old ... you did not care whether she agreed or not, (went from heavy petting to) forcing yourself on her just as you had your sister.
'You ejaculated within her and you persuaded her and she persuaded herself that it was normal.
'You made (the third victim) submit.  Here too you alleged she was part of the conspiracy.' orchestrated by your sister.'
Mr. Justice Goldbart told Mr. Burke:  'You have an attitude to women that reveals a self-justifying lack of insight.'
Meanwhile, we must wait to see if any British newspaper carries another exclusive insightful interview with Karen Danczuk who claims to have suffered 'severe psychological harm'.
On the wings of a Total Institution
As Michael Burke goes into the cells to begin his sentence he will be entering what sociologists call a 'total institution'.  He will be striped, showered and searched before he gets to the cells on the reception wing.  He will be questioned as to any special dietary requirements.  I normally lie and declare myself to be a vegetarian in the hope that it may enable me to get more choice when the food is dished-up.
Once on the wings he must have a suitably convincing narrative to explain his predicament to his fellow cell-mates and other prisoners in the jail community. 
In Court Two of the Manchester Crown Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Goldbart, educated at the  University of Cambridge, may have preached to you about you having 'shown not a shred of remorse'.  That may well be the case, but the prison community is an entirely different jurisdiction from the Crown Court, and he will soon find out it applies its own rules and posses its own hierarchy and standards. 
Rule 43!
Michael Burke needs to prepare himself skillfully if he is not to end up segregated serving his ten-year sentence on Rule 43.*
To establish his status in the prison hierarchy Michael Burke will have to present a story which will  be acceptable and will gain him respect among the inmates.  To do this and survive on the wings, he needs to reaffirm his defence that a 'conspiracy' was 'orchestrated' against him by a group of people who had malicious intent.  In the context of an all-male community the idea of what the novelist Henry James called a 'capricious woman' would not be difficult for the average prison inmate to understand, (see 'The Princess Casamassima ).
For Mr. Burke to now suggest to his fellow prisoners that he is the victim of a 'conspiracy'  by an ex-girl friend and a former partner would not be something that the male prison community would find hard to understand, especially when one of the complainants has given an exclusive interview to the press.  Though it is not yet known if she will be paid for this.
Some substance may be given to this account by an exchange of e-mails in September/ October 2015, when Northern Voices was given a name of someone who had approached some women previously associated with Mr. Burke.
At that time we put the forward the following question to this individual:
'I have been given information from two separate sources that you were in contact with a number of Michael Burke's former girl friends or partners, some of whom subsequently went to the police.  'Could you confirm if this is true, and if it is, explain why you did this? 
'Look forward to your early response'
A reply came back to NV two days later in the form of a threat:
'These allegations are completely untrue, defamatory and may constitute a malicious falsehood if published.'
Considering this response and in the dangerous prison environment as described by the Strangeways prison officer above to the MEN, a conspiracy narrative could save Michael Burke's life.  Karen. Danczuk may have secured what she now calls 'closure' but she has done so by using the criminal justice system to deliver her own brother into the human jungle of the British prison system.  Meanwhile she can now get on with her life like she has been performing on 'Bear Grylls', or being paid to appear on 'Loose Women'.
As a sociologist/ ethnomethodologist as well as a former prison inmate, for practical purposes in prison I would advise Michael Burke to stick to the defence he presented in the Manchester Crown Court: that he is the victim of a 'stitch-up' by what the defence described as an 'attention seeker' and what the press call a 'Selfie Queen'.
Rule 43 states that any prisoner can apply to be taken into solitary confinement on a Vulnerable Prisoners Unit, for his own protection. Jailed police and prison officers, sex offenders and showbusiness celebrities often apply for this.