Cyril Smith and Faisal Rana

by Les May

NOT two names you would ever expect to see together, but as I was reminded when I read the somewhat garbled story by Jennifer Williams in the Saturday edition of the Rochdale Observer, there are some remarkable similarities.

Let’s forget the speculation and recap what we actually know. Smith indecently assaulted young men at the Cambridge House hostel in the 1960s.  Had he not been guilty of this he would have sued Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) for the article in the May 1979 edition.  Rana voted twice in the May 2018 local government election. When found out he admitted it. Two guilty men; two sets of blind eyes being turned.

What are the similarities?   For a start neither of these men ever stood in the dock and answered for their crimes, though the reasons for this appear very different. Another similarity is the way that people who could, and should, have taken non-judicial actions against these two guilty men have excused their reasons for not doing so.

David Steel who was told of these accusations against Smith by the RAP editors, David Bartlett and John Walker, has excused his inaction by saying;

‘These allegations all related to a period some years before he was even an MP and before he was even a member of the party, therefore it did not seem to me that I had any position in the matter at all. He accepted that the story was correct. Obviously I disapproved, but as far as I was concerned it was past history.’

How remarkably similar this is to the response I received when I raised the matter of Rana voting twice with the RMBC monitoring officer.  I was told that Rana’s criminal behaviour had taken place before he became a Councillor, hence no action could be taken.  Just as party leader Steel was able to avoid taking any action against Smith, these seems to have been enough to have allowed party leader Alan Brett to avoid taking action against Rana.

In fact the excuse from the monitoring officer was nonsense.  Rana’s crime was committed on polling day 3 May 2018 and his term of office runs from that day until the day before the next poll is held.  I feel justified in using the term ‘excuse’ here because when I later asked for clarification about Rana’s failure to declare his interests within the stipulated time period the officer who dealt with this during an extensive correspondence squirmed and did everything possible to avoid having to admit that Rana had failed to comply with the rules.

So why did neither of these men appear in the dock?  We know that in the case of Smith the police pursued a rigorous investigation, that the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and that no action was taken against Smith.  No evidence has yet been produced that this was a ‘cover up’ and the most likely explanation is that even though a number of young men has made similar accusations against Smith as the law stood at the time this could not be taken as corroboration that he committed the crimes he was accused of.  This seems absurd to us now and the law has since been changed.

In the case of Rana things are much less clear. We don’t know whether the decision to allow him off the hook with only a caution was taken by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) without referring the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or whether it was a decision made by the CPS.   If the decision was made by GMP alone then it seems to me to be a significant error of judgement on someone’s part.

Voter fraud strikes at the heart of our democracy and whether it be GMP, the CPA, a council officer or a party leader no one should do anything which appears to excuse or condone it.  Smith is dead, Steel is yesterday’s man and Rana is still a councillor. Which do you think we should be most concerned about?

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2019/03/what-rap-said-about-smith-in-1979.html

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

Cyril Smith Saga: More Old News?

by Les May

THE ‘revelation’ that in January 1970 Cyril Smith approached the police to find out if he was going to be charged following the investigation into allegations that he had indecently assaulted young men at Cambridge House hostel in the 1960s is ‘old news'.  It has been in the public domain for about three years and came to light as a result of a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS).
He told police that he was concerned that if he were charged it would prevent him from standing as a candidate in the forthcoming general election.  I see nothing sinister in this.  It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
On this occasion, acting on legal advice, he declined to make a formal statement.  But at the end of February 1970 he returned with a prepared statement which did not address the allegations directly.  It read as follows:
‘I am not prepared to make a statement at this stage as to the allegations made by the eight boys, particulars of which you have supplied to me.  I am, however, prepared to say this.  I was active in the running and administration of the hostel. [Redacted]  The object was to help the under-privileged and deprived boys of over school leaving age, many of whom had social, domestic, health and other problems and to get them settled continuous and productive employment.  In respect of some of the boys, we were faced with difficult problems of discipline arising from general misconduct, [redacted] and work shyness.  At all times, we were in loco parentis to the boys as part of an agreement signed by each boy on his entering the hostel.  I produce a copy of the agreement.  The warden and her husband lived on the premises and the “Quiet Room”, which had no lock on the door, was some three feet away from their living quarters.  Members of the committee were wont to call at the hostel at all times unheralded, and [redacted] would call at least three or four times per week to talk to the boys, sometimes in my presence, but usually in my absence, and they would discuss personal or other problems with the boys.  I should like to point out that two of the boys resident in the hostel were elected to represent the boys and attended the monthly committee meetings.
'I never heard a single complaint as to any conduct of mine being made by any boy or any committee member or anybody else, and I am quite astounded at these present complaints made so long after the alleged events.  I am in the position to call very many witnesses not only as to my general integrity, which has never heretofore been questioned, but also as to the unfailing help and support that I have always been known to give to my fellow townsfolk in general, and the youth of the town in particular. In fact, the greater part of my life has been dedicated to these ends.  Personally, I would just like to point out that the mere existence of these allegations, if they become known, may be damaging to my public and private career.  But, at the same time, I wish to state most emphatically that I have never behaved in any indecent way towards any of these boys, but have done my best to help them at a difficult stage in their lives.’
The redacted words appear to refer to the names of people who some might see as ‘guilty by association’ or accusations against residents of Cambridge House.
It seems clear that Smith’s defence would have relied upon his ‘good standing’ in the town the delay in the allegations being made.  Having seen copies of the affidavits signed in 1979 by some of the men assaulted I have no doubt that he did do some things that most people would consider improper. It should however be pointed out that the 1979 RAP (Rochdale Alternative Paper) article stressed that his behaviour amounted to abuse of power and did not seek to emphasise abuse of a sexual nature.
What does seem to be new is the fact that when the editors of RAP, David Bartlett and John Walker, asked the police about allegations against Cyril, the police lied in their reply.
Whether the police were approached by any of the mainstream press after the RAP article was published we do not know. If they were and gave the same answer, it would explain why the allegations in the RAP article were not taken up by the mainstream press.
One can construct any number of ‘conspiracy theories’ around the fact that the police lied to Bartlet and Walker in 1979.  But none of these exonerate the print and broadcast media. Had the media followed the lead given by RAP, Smith would have been finished as a politician, something he acknowledges in his statement to the police in February 1970.  Had the voters of Rochdale taken note of the RAP article they would not have voted for him in the May 1979 election.  The story of Smith and Cambridge House was ‘hidden in plain sight’ for 33 years until an editor of RAP, John Walker, and an editor of Northern Voices (NV), Brian Bamford, in July 2012 tracked down two of the men assaulted at Cambridge House. Simon Danczuk only became aware of this after Paul Waugh, who ran a political blog, contacted NV in the autumn of 2012 and passed on the story to him.
To my mind the lessons to be drawn from this are twofold.  The first is the importance of the protecting and widening the Freedom of Information Act.  Not least making the supplier of the information responsible for its accuracy and for fulfilling not just the letter of the law, but its spirit also.
The second is to recognise the importance of independent news sources like RAP and NV.  Along with the rest of the press my local paper declined to print the RAP story in 1979.  At that time it was independent and had its own team of reporters.  Now it is part of a larger group so that the same material, by the same authors, appears in the local and regional press. In other words the press is much less diverse than it was then.  Without the original RAP story and the more recent efforts of Messrs Walker and Bamford the story of Smith and Cambridge House would never have been told.

Mr. Danczuk's Misleading Us Again

by Brian Bamford

THIS week, Simon Danczuk the current MP for Rochdale, claimed in the Daily Mail that he met John Walker only twice before Danczuk's book 'Smile for the Camera' was written and he said Mr. Walker had nothing to do with the book - and so did not receive a donation from him or his colleague and co-author, Mr. Matthew Baker.
As a former journalist, Mr Walker had previously worked for the Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP), which first exposed the then LibDem Rochdale politician Cyril Smith back in May 1979.
It ought to be noted that when Walker and his joint-editor David Bartlett made their revelations in RAP in 1979, they did so at great risk to themselves:  their jobs were vulnerable, as they worked as lecturers for the local authority at a time when Cyril Smith had great local influence and he did take legal advice which produced a solicitor's letter but this only ultimately resulted in the threat of injunction against their paper RAP and some modest legal costs to them, which as anticipated frightened off the weak-kneed main-stream press.  Only Private Eye went on to publish the story based on the RAP revelations.
Last week, following the dedication of a toilet block at a school Mr Walker, in a tongue-in-cheek gesture told the Daily Mail that he and his wife, Sandra, of the London-based Sohm Schools Support had dubbed the facilities the 'Simon Danczuk Toilet Block' as part of their programme to improve two schools in a tiny village in Gambia.
In an attempt to justify the £250 to Mr Walker's Charity rung out of the publisher, Mr. Danczuk told the Daily Mail this week:
'... that Mr Walker was acknowledged in its foreword because of the part he played in helping uncover Smith's wrongdoing.'

But Mr Danczuk said:

'I am sorry for Mr Walker who is clearly confused about his involvement with authoring the book, which evidently has contributed an awful lot to raising the issue of child abuse and continues to help victims deal with their traumatic past.'

Some doubts have now been thrown upon this Danczuk's story after Northern Voices' has contacted John Walker, who is still out in Gambia until March working for the Charity.  It now seems that Mr. Walker had much more contact with Danczuk and Baker in to the run-up to the publication of their book.
Yesterday, John Walker confirmed 'I certainly met Danczuk 4 times'.
Mr. Walker then went on to detail the four occassions on which they met in the run-up to the publication of Danczuk's book:
1 - at my request, in the Strangers' Bar of the House of Commons, to discuss my idea of a book. He consumed rather a lot to drink over a couple of hours - so I can understand if this meeting slipped his memory. This would be Nov 2012.

2 - at his request, in his tax/payer funded Pimlico flat, in the week between Xmas and New Year, to discuss my draft outline for the book.

3 - at his request. 10 days later in Portcullis house, Westminster, to discus the book with the literary agent he found.

4 - at his request, and my cost, a meeting in his Rochdale office to discuss how "Matthew Baker" could line up local contacts to be interviewed for the book. (Brian, you will remember this, as we met for a meal and drink afterwards.) Basically, Danczuk and Baker had decided to go ahead without me, and effectively told me so. Thus wasting a day of my time and travel costs to Rochdale (unlike Danczuk, whose fares are met by the taxpayer, I footed my own bill).
This account would seem to be enough to discredit the Danczuk story in itself as Mr. Walker and  Rochdale's Alternative Paper is regarded with great respect in, but there is also evidence of indirect contact through the former Westminster blogger, Paul Waugh.  Two of the young  inmates from Cambridge House, Barry Fitton and Edward Sharrock, both complainants who Danczuk referred to by in his speech in the House of Commons when he first took up this cause in November 2012, were provided for him through the good offices of Mr Walker and Northern Voices.

How Danczuk Judges Others by own standards!

by Les May

DANCZUK's response to the story which appears in today's Rochdale Observer about a toilet block being named after him: 

'The publisher paid John Walker £250 in error,  it should never have been paid to him.  He contributed nothing to the book written about Cyril Smith.  It's not for me to pay for his flights to Gambia.'

is typical Danczuk bluster, displays a total ignorance of why the money was paid and is libellous by implication.  Clearly Danczuk judges others by his own casual approach to entitlement to expenses. 

When I put this to John Walker he replied:  

'And, of course the charity does not pay my flights to The Gambia.  I have never drawn a penny from it and it costs me, at a conservative estimate c £2k per year.' 

If you don’t know who to believe in this exchange you might remember that Danczuk has never told us how many men he interviewed before writing his book.  I wrote to him in 2014 asking him this very question and he has never replied.  When a Northern Voices editor put the same question to Danczuk and Baker at the Rochdale Literary and Ideas Festival in the same year he was summarily ejected by the ‘fragrant’ Karen Danczuk. 

When Danczuk and Baker’s book appeared in 2014 reviewers fell over themselves to denounce Smith and praise the book.  Almost the only sceptical note was sounded by Nicholas Blincoe in review in the Telegraph.  But Blincoe was from Rochdale and knew all about Smith from the story which appeared in May 1979 in Rochdale’s Alternative Paper (RAP).  Walker was one of the two co-editors of RAP.   As Blincoe said in his review. ‘Everyone in Rochdale read the RAP story.  I pored over it as a 13-year-old.’.  Which means of course that everyone in Rochdale over about 55 knows the just how big is the debt Danczuk and Baker owes to the dogged efforts of Walker and co-editor David Bartlett. 

Now I’ve ‘got form’ in attacking Danczuk’s claims about his book, but if you want an independent view check out the articles on the Zelo blog using the link I have provided below. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10796249/Smile-for-the-Camera-The-Double-Life-of-Cyril-Smith-by-Simon-Danczuk-and-Matthew-Baker-review.html 

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/danczuk-did-not-expose-cyril-smith.html 

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-prizewinning-fraud.html 

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-and-that-book-1.html 

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-and-that-book-2.html 

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/simon-danczuks-cyril-smith-book-3.html 

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/simon-danczuks-cyril-smith-book-4.html 

 

"I don't understand why he has never written a book about this himself.

He's had plenty of opportunities to do so."

 

I consider the statement " It's not for me to pay for his flights to

Gambia." a libel by implication.

--

 

More crappy conduct surrounding Danczuk

by Les May

The above image of the RAP front page is copyright

and Northern Voices has been given permission to use it.
******

TUCKED away in the 'Acknowledgements' section of the hardback edition of the book 'Smile for the Camera' by Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk and his aide Matthew Baker, is a line crediting the Rochdale Observer for some of the photographs used in the book.  That's curious because there are no photographs in the book.  It seems that the authors were so keen to get the book out that they dropped the pictures.

The cynical amongst you might think this was to make sure that it appeared before the 2014 local election, and so give them a stick to beat the Rochdale Lib-Dems with, because until 1992 Cyril Smith had been the local Lib-Dem MP.  If it was, the plan rapidly backfired when it was pointed out that at the time Cyril was spanking bottoms at Cambridge House he was a member of the Labour party.  

This little mystery was solved when the paperback version came out in 2015.  Sure enough here were the photographs.  But amongst them was an image that was uncredited.  It was a picture of the front page of the first edition of the Rochdale's Alternative Paper (RAP) dated November 1971, which had a cartoon of a Cyril Smith shaped barrage balloon hanging over Rochdale Town Hall and the authors had not sought the permission of the joint editors of RAP, David Bartlett and John Walker before using it.

Unsurprisingly, John Walker wrote to Ian Dale, Managing Director of the book's publishers Biteback Publishing, to point this out.

'No permission was sought, or obtained, from the editors of RAP for such a reproduction.  I have been advised that this unauthorised and unacknowledged reproduction is a breach of copyright.  I am further advised that an appropriate reproduction fee for the use of the image - illustrative of much of the content of the book - would be £1,000.'

Now if you think that this is rather a lot money to ask for the use of an image bear in mind that Mr Danczuk appears to have made rather a lot of money from the reproduction of images of his good self, as well as from the Daily Mail serialisation rights of the book.  Also, bear in mind that the image had been published without permission being sought and that, as we shall see, Hell would have frozen over before permission would have been granted.

None of this money was set to go into the pocket of John Walker or David Bartlett.  The letter continued:
'My wife and I run a small educational charity in The Gambia ( see www.SohmSchoolsSupport.org.uk  for full details of its activities, status and legitimacy).

'It would be my intention, that after agreement with my RAP co-editor, the reproduction fee should be paid to the Sohm charity, as indeed have other small fees for articles paid to me, relating to the story.'

The first response from Ian Dale was to claim that it was a newspaper masthead, and hence was free of copyright.

So John Walker tried again:
'Good effort for being dismissive and avoiding the substance of mine of the 4th.

'I can only assume that it was a desire to respond quickly that meant you didn't fully read my letter, nor refer to the image reproduced in Smile for the Camera, before composing and sending it.

'The image reproduced was not simply the  'masthead' of the first edition of RAP, but the full front page - featuring a magazine-commissioned cartoon, that is probably four times the size of the masthead.  Are you saying that you believe this is not subject to copyright?  A strange stance from a publisher, I would have thought.

'Had it only been the masthead that was reproduced, I think that, even by the slack attention to detail standards evidenced in the book, the caption writer to the RAP image would have managed to notice that the publication's title (as clearly shown in the masthead) was Rochdale's Alternative Paper.  It was not 'Rochdale's Alternative Press', as the caption, along with such other references to the publication in the book, has it.'

This produced an apology from Ian Dale and an admission of liability in the form of an offer of £75.

The third letter from John to Biteback's Managing Director, Ian Dale, explained why this sum was inadequate:    

'Thank you for your letter of 15 March, accepting that you have been in breach of copyright and face a liability over the unauthorised reproduction of the front cover of the first edition of Rochdale's Alternative Paper, in the paperback edition of Smile for the Camera.

'I have been in contact with lawyers and IP (ed: intellectual property) specialists who advise me that your opening gesture of a settlement is inadequate, for a number of reasons:

'Firstly, the right to use the image was neither sought, nor given, prior to publication.

'Second, this transgression is aggravated by the fact that if not you, certainly the book's authors, would have known that permission would not have been given for the reproduction, had it been sought.  I won't bore you with a tedious timeline of events, or supporting documents, if you don't already know the background, but I'm sure the authors will agree that there has been a considerable rift between us over rights and potential authorship of the book.  Even they accept, begrudgingly, and in a grossly understated way, my role in the book's gestation, in its Acknowledgements section.  Should you want full chapter and verse of my disagreement with them I will happily supply it.

'Third, the now iconic cover cartoon of the first edition of Rochdale's Alternative Paper, which you reproduced, without accurate acknowledgement of source or recognition of copyright ownership, is in fact, central to the claims made in the book about Smith's dominating and all-powerful role in Rochdale politics in the 1960s and 1970s.  This, in some ways, enables them to make some pretty far-fetched claims about Smith - unverified - knowing that readers would accept them because 'The Fatman' could apparently get away with anything.

'In these circumstances my advice is that a fee of £250 would be a reasonable one, made of course, to the Gambian charity, of which I have previously written (details below).'

Three weeks later with no response from Biteback, and no money put into the account of the Sohm school charity John Walker wrote:

'I note that you have neither replied to my letter of 3 April, nor deposited a payment into the Sohm Schools Support bank account.

'Out of courtesy, I must tell you that should there have been no response by the 1st, May, I shall escalate this matter.'

Ian Dale's initial view that the sum asked for was 'above the going rate' is seriously mistaken.  Had permission been sought first such a comment would have been in order because a market would have existed.  In this case he would have been free to accept or decline the price being asked for permission to publish the image.  The price could have been quite high because of the 'scarcity value' of the image there being no other supplier.  That is how markets work.  Simply taking and using the image means that no market exists and the question changes from, 'Is this a fair price?' to  'What is my lawyers bill likely to be?'

Taking and using an image without first obtaining permission amounts to theft of intellectual property, which is hardly something one would expect an MP to want to be associated with.  Both authors had a responsibility to alert the publisher about possible copyright issues.  As they credit the Rochdale Observer for some of the photographs they were clearly aware of this.

To his credit Ian Dale paid the £250 fee requested.  I hope that he recovered it from Danczuk and Baker because by paying up he 'pulled their coals out of the fire'.

If John Walker feels a bit aggrieved at the way Danczuk and Baker have written him out of the Smith story I can understand why.  This is what he told me in an e-mail, relating to the genesis of the Danczuk/Baker book in 2012:

'I tried to get the Smith case re-opened (ed: after revelations about Savile were aired in October 2012), and as a result met up with current Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk to suggest writing a book on the subject (me to write, him to front).

'He seemed very keen. We got to the point of me drafting a lengthy synopsis and meeting up with an agent, who ended up arranging for a publication.

'It was at this point Danczuk ditched me and worked with his then press secretary to produce a book Smile for the Camera, published by Biteback Publishing.  It became quite a hit, and attracted a lengthy serialisation in the Daily Mail.

'I was more than a little upset that I had been cut out of this process and contacted Danczuk along these lines.  I suggested that by way of compensation he made a donation to a charity my wife and I run in The Gambia (Sohm Schools Support - see below for details).  He ignored this.'

Referring to the cartoon on the cover of the first edition of RAP, John Walker emphasised a point I have made repeatedly in my reviews of Smile for the Camera; that the majority of Danczuk and Baker's claims cannot be verified:

'It was clearly used to depict Smith as Danczuk wanted him to be seen, and implicitly acknowledged the source (RAP) of the ONLY independently verified bit of Danczuk's sensational claims in the book.' (see Les May's review of 'Smile for the Camera' on NV Blog)

John Walker had originally been in contact with Danczuk about making a contribution to his African charity at the time of the original publication of Smile for the Camera, in recognition of his role in its emergence.  He had suggested that if the Danczuk contribution were significant, it could result in a facility at the Sohm school being named after him, to reflect his contribution (e.g. The Simon Danczuk library, or dining room).  Danczuk ignored this, and made no contribution.

As it happens, a new toilet block is currently under construction at the Gambian school, partially funded by John Walker's charity.  With the approval of the school principal, this is likely to be formally named and branded the Simon Danczuk block, when next John visits the village

I'm promised a photo of it so I'll post it on the NV blog.

If NV readers feel they would like to make a donation to the new toilet block in recognition of Mr Danczuk's contribution to political life since he was elected MP in 2010, I am sure it will be gratefully received.  The web address is given below.  To make a dreadful pun:
'Don't just sign a petition about Danczuk, do something concrete'.

In my now distant school days it was common to hear a lad say he was 'going for a crap'.  No doubt in future, Gambian youngsters will be heard to say 'I'm going for a Danczuk!'. 
How singularly appropriate.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-and-that-book-1.html
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-and-that-book-2.html
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/simon-danczuks-cyril-smith-book-3.html
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/simon-danczuks-cyril-smith-book-4.html
www.SohmSchoolsSupport.org.uk
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/simon-danczuk-twitter-meltdown.html

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

by Les May 

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


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

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


Although the book purports to give a verbatim account of what Smith did to one young man who had taken a day off work in a chapter headed 'Silent Voices #1' there are some strange passages in this section.  For example on page 87 we read: 
'It was said that Leonardo da Vinci would gaze at the stains on walls and imagine vivid battles and landscapes. That day cheap exuberant motifs gave way to a swarm of angry locusts bringing a load of plague and pestilence.'   


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


At one point we read: 
'Above his heavy breathing I could smell his rancid body odour. It was like cabbage boiled in vinegar. As his heavy breathing slowed, a continuous low sound rose in his chest like a purr of contentment. He was humming quietly to himself. Then he reached for a wet sponge by the sink and began to stroke my bottom, rough hands sliding over a minefield of welts. I gritted my teeth as the burning, stinging sensation intensified. Ever once in a while he'd apply the sponge generously, letting cold water trickle down the back of my legs.'   


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


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


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


We now know Lancashire Police investigated Smith's activities at Cambridge House in 1969 and that in March 1970 an 80 page file of evidence was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) containing complaints from eight young men about indecent assaults by him. The Greater Manchester Police update of this information does not detail any other group of complainants. But similar stories about 'police files' appear in the book on pages 45, 47 and 51, leaving the impression that they refer to separate complaints, which they don't.   


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Truly 'a lightweight potboiler'! 


Appendix (from RAP, May 1979) : 
'RAP has traced 10 ex-residents and one who, though never having been at Cambridge House, made a statement to the police. 
Of the 10, three have nothing but praise for Cyril Smith.  The other 7 have all made allegations which fall into one or both categories:  
'BEATINGS They have described to us Smith’s role in providing discipline.  Two extracts from sworn statements given to us illustrate the procedure:   
'From a man now married with 4 children and living in Rochdale, describes how, while at the hostel and aged about 16 he took a day off work from the job Smith had arranged for him. His absence from the job was reported to the hostel and he was interviewed by Smith:  
'He gave me the choice between accepting his punishment and leaving the hostel. I said I would accept his punishment...He took me into the Quiet Room. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. When I had done that he hit me four or five times with his bare hands on my bare buttocks.' 
(2) From a man, single, living and working in Rochdale, then aged about 15, describes how after he had been reported for a minor offence: 
'Cyril Smith found out that I had taken some money. He asked me if I would accept his punishment or be dealt with by the authorities. I said I would accept his punishment. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. He trapped my hands between his legs. He hit me many times with his bare hand and I pleaded with him to stop because he was hurting me. This took place at the hostel. Afterwards he came to my bedroom and wiped my buttocks with a wet sponge.' 
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/11/cps-statement-in-relation-to-cyril-smith.html

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

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

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

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

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

We should see Sex Abuse Report!

by Les May

A report in today's Rochdale Observer tells us that a decision will be taken on Monday about whether the local council's investigation into allegations of sexual abuse at Knowl View special school in the late 1980s and early 1990s should be scrapped.  The argument in favour of scrapping the local investigation is that the Goddard Inquiry will address the same issues and that any duplication would be a waste of money.

In April 2014 the council commissioned Mr Justice Garman to investigate claims of abuse both at Knowl View and at Cambridge House hostel.  The latter dated from the 1960s and involved the late Cyril Smith.  The Garman inquiry superceded an earlier inquiry which had been commissioned specifically to look at the Knowl View claims.  This widened inquiry was set up following the 're-discovery' by Simon Danczuk of the story by John Walker and David Bartlett of Smith's antics at Cambridge House published in Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) in May 1979.

As Smith was alive when the story was published and declined to sue the authors there had never been any reason to doubt that it was true.  Having seen the affidavits of the young men who were on the receiving end of Cyril's attentions I can understand why he decided no to sue.  The story was well known to people in Rochdale though it did little to dent Cyril's popularity.  How Simon must wish that his own little difficulties of allegations by an ex-wife, questions about expenses and some dubious texts could be so easily forgotten.

The Garman inquiry was also to look at claims that council officers had 'covered up' abuse at Knowl View involving pupils some of whom were victims and others perpetrators.  Claims of such homosexual activity by boys at Knowl View had been made public in an article in the Independent on Sunday in September 1995.  The source of these claims was a very professional and unsensational report in 1991 by Aids worker Philip Shepherd.

What does not seem to be disputed is that the report was sent to both the Education and Social Services departments of RMBC and that a further report by a consultant clinical psychologist was commissioned.  This confirmed Mr Shepherd's findings.

The intention was that the Garman report would be published by the end of July 2014.  The proximate reason for the fact that the report was never published is that the Greater Manchester Police launched a criminal investigation.  However it is also the case that whether intentionally or otherwise Simon Danczuk's constant interventions acted to undermine public confidence in the Garman report.  The constant refrain was that RMBC could not be trusted to hold an inquiry into itself.  The fact that this was a serious slur upon the independence and professionalism of Mr Justice Garman does not seem to have occurred to Mr Danczuk.  

At the time the overall impression was that the Garman inquiry had been abandoned.  We now find that it had been 'temporarily halted', that Mr Justice Garman has produced an interim report and that he met with 'resistance' from potential witnesses in 2014.

Now, I don't wish to claim that there has been a deliberate 'cover up' in the past two years by RMBC.  But the fact remains that once the Garman inquiry was halted (temporarily or otherwise) one effect was that RMBC no longer had to field questions from the press and other news organisations.  All enquiries now had to be directed to GMP.

Nor does it look likely that we shall ever see the contents of Garman's interim report.  We can I think assume that this contains details of which council officers saw the 1991 Shepherd report and the February 1992 report by consultant psychologist Valerie Mellor, what action the took themselves, what further action they recommended to councillors and which councillors they reported to. I think we can also assume that it will include details of who 'resisted' Mr Justice Garman's investigation.

I don't believe there was a deliberate 'cover up' by RMBC about what was known about sexual activity amongst the boys at Knowl View. Having read the Shepherd report I can see that what was going on was undoubtedly very unsavoury.  But I fail to see how anyone could have found an instant solution to all the very serious problems which were uncovered.  Immediate closure of the school was clearly not an option.

The question is did the people who knew about what was going on at the school, whether they were officers or councillors, make a serious attempt to sort out the problems that had come to light?

Whilst it would clearly be inappropriate to publish any sections of the interim report which relate to claims of any criminal activity the rest of it should be published.

If next Monday the Cabinet decide to 'axe' the now 'halted' Garman inquiry and use it as an excuse for not publishing the interim report they have only themselves to blame if it generates claims of a 'cover up', not least because the leader of the council in the early 1990s, and who might have been made aware of what had been happening at Knowl View and what steps were being taken to remedy it, returned as leader of the council in 2014.  In a word the present situation is a mess.

Whilst I have often been sceptical about some of Mr Danczuk's actions in relation to Knowl View this is something where I think he should use his position as Rochdale's MP to press for the publication of Mr Justice Garman's interim report.

Over to you Mr Danczuk.