JOHN WALKER GETS THE BRUSH-OFF
After Smile For The Camera was published, John Walker, who had done so much work to firm up the idea of a book by Simon Danczuk on his predecessor Cyril Smith, and who had put in so much work before being effectively told that his services were no longer required, realised that he’d been had.
But he gave it one last chance - and wrote to Danczuk asking if the MP would make a donation to the educational charity he and his wife run in the Gambia. It has to be stressed that at no time did Walker ask for a payment to be made to himself. The letter makes some most interesting points - none of which have been disputed by Danczuk.
These comments stand out, and bear repetition: “At your suggestion, I met you in the Commons … You were excited at the prospect and wished to continue discussions … Again, at your suggestion, we met at your [redacted] flat in the Christmas recess to discuss the detail. You were very excited by now and undertook to arrange a meeting with a literary agent, with a view to securing publication”.
There’s more: “On the basis of this - and at your suggestion, I put together a 1,600 proposal on the rough structure of the book, and a 12,000 word synopsis, to present to the agents, whom we met in [redacted] on 9 January 2013 … Again, at your suggestion, I travelled to Rochdale two days later (at my own expense), to spend four hours with your press assistant, Matthew Baker”. And there Danczuk changed his tone.
“In the 48 hours between your excitement at the meeting with the agents and my visit to Rochdale, you had gone extremely cold on the whole proposal and did not really wish to discuss it … Matthew Baker sought every opportunity to change the subject … and you began to talk about wishing to turn the story into a TV docudrama”.
Guess what happened then? “About a month later, I received a phone call from Matthew Baker, out of the blue, saying that he and you were writing a book on the Smith story. He started asking questions … he seemed very nervous, when he called and extremely evasive in responding to any questions I had of him”. And it gets worse.
“Then, very strangely, over the Christmas break, I got a phone call from you, at home. I'm not really sure why, but I can only assume to establish whether or not I had any publishing plans. In the course of the phone call, you confirmed that your publication was going ahead, as a result of an introduction from the literary agents we had met”.
Walker then suggests that Danczuk make a donation to his educational charity - after all, other publications that he had assisted had done so. His letter was dated 17 April 2014.
Only on 29 July - more than three months later - came Danczuk’s reply, written - one might more appropriately say scrawled - on House of Commons notepaper. It is reproduced verbatim here. And this is what the MP had to say.
“I’m conscious that I never responded to your letter from April - please accept my apologies … You make a number of important points in your letter and I would not take issue with any of them [my emphasis]”.
“The proposal that secured the book deal was radically different from anything you produced or shared with us … I’m hoping that with the passage of time you might now take a different view to what you did in April [!] … I’d very much like to stay in touch and would be delighted to meet for a beer or coffee”.
“There is no doubt that you played a major part in the Cyril Smith story (as I acknowledge in the book) and as a consequence, have played a part in the bigger story about child abuse connected to Westminster … Hope you do fancy meeting up”.
Understandably, John Walker, who is as conscious as anyone else of the limited monetary value in an acknowledgement, decided not to waste any more of his time on Simon Danczuk. And there ends a salutary lesson for anyone who puts their trust in “Rochdale’s MP”.
Whenever I see or hear anything from Danksuck I feel a pressing urge to open all the windows and doors, fumigate the place, and take a long hot shower.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the Daily Heil to give this the same space as his far right rants. After all, there are no precedents in Daily Heil history that it and its propaganda clerks have ever sought to tell the truth or promote a fair society.
"Disgusting" is the least of it. Based on this evidence I would say Danksuck is a two faced, hypocritical, plagiarising shitehawk of the first rank. Well in keeping with the Nastzi party and its corrupt Jeffrey Archer practices. Which is why he should do one and join them formally - then see if Rochdale chooses to vote for him.
Some folk might say that this again shows that Simon and his Poison Pen saw this as a cynical opportunity to make as much cash out of CSA as possible, claiming themselves to be "experts" in the field, when they were behaving like cheating schoolchildren all the while.
Robbing stories from the abused, lining their own pockets with Dacre/Murdoch cash, and now out of control attacking the Labour party from their Blairite bunker. What now for the cash from the DM serialisations and the TV options? The awards? From all the mind-numbing interviews claiming that the sky was falling down?
Some folk might say that these bullies in the playground are headed for a nasty fall. Simon is clearly headed for deselection, while who knows what fate awaits the Poison Pen in Bristol, especially with questions now being asked about his past?
Perhaps chickens coming home to roost soon, then?
"The proposal that secured the book deal was radically different from anything you produced or shared with us"
This seems like something that could be very easily disproven by simply comparing Walker's 12,000 word synopsis with the actual book that was published. Would they really be "radically different"?
Grim. I hope this is picked up by the local and national print media as it deserves wider coverage. The Guardian journalist who interviewed him the other day wrote that he was the only politician she had ever met who asked for an interview fee. Clearly a very greedy man.
So why hasn't John Walker published regardless?
He knew about Cyril Smith's abuse since at least the mid 1970's and waiting until the 1979 General Election to publish in RAP. Then silence. Years and decades went by. Cyril Smith got away with it during his lifetime. Absolutely shameful.
Why the hell didn't John Walker keep raising the alarm about Cyril Smith and sex abuse throughout the 1980's and 1990's when Smith was still a governor of Knowl View?
I saw John Walker as a folk hero, one of the good guys but given all this negative noise about the Danzcuk book it just sounds like sour grapes, politicking and petty jealousy. I really expected better from the guy I admired for his part in RAP.
Can there be a straight answer to a simple question - did Simon Danzcuk MP plagarise the work of John Walker?
Lets call a spade a spade, if Danczuk is a thief then will someone say so and back it up with real evidence please?
Will John Walker's entire 12,000 word synopsis be published so that it can be compared to the text of Smile for The Camera?
There is a danger here that legitimate criticism is being mixed up with political agendas and score settling. In doing so the victims of Cyril Smith's sexual abuse could see a further injustice.
Post a Comment