Child abuse inquiry: “Council leader Farnell lied to us under oath”


The SKWAWKBOX has covered at some length the issue of child abuse in Rochdale and the accusations against then-council leader Richard Farnell, who was accused of having direct knowledge of the extensive child abuse taking place at the Knowl View school – and ignoring it, or even worse.

Mr Farnell denied the accusations – including a direct denial to the SKWAWKBOX when we asked him about them – and in turn accused at least one of his accusers, Peter Joinson, of fabricating his testimony for political revenge. Mr Joinson’s response to the inquiry’s counsel was unequivocal:

Mr Farnell’s denials – and the alleged attempts of local councillors and other officials to protect him – caused an implosion in the local Labour Party, with resignations of local officers and a planned revolt to depose him before he eventually resigned.

Now Farnell is facing potential police action after IICSA – the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – concluded in an official report on events in Rochdale that he had lied to them under oath, as BBC News broadcast this evening:

Apparent vindication, then, for those who were accused of lying about the extent of Richard Farnell’s knowledge of events.

And what should be a salutary lesson for mainstream media with a pavlovian reflex to portray entrenched so-called ‘moderate’ councillors as victims when attempts are made to challenge or remove them for the good of local communities and the Labour Party’s reputation.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

1 comment

  1. Still squealing that he’s innocent, apparently. Reckons there’s clear evidence that he’s innocent, too. Well, I believe differently, and so did the investigation.

    Best save it for the judge, farnell.

    I do hope that if he goes on trial and is found guilty, the judge taking his not guilty plea as an aggravating factor and goes to town on him; giving him the maximum sentence possible without any chance of parole.

    Also, that he is not given a cushy spell in an open prison. Lying under oath is not grounds for segregation, nor should he be afforded any.

    But we know nonces don’t receive the correct sentences and politicians what lie under oath definitely don’t, so expect him to get a lenient one as well.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: