Transcription of interview on Radio 4 PM.
                 ----------------------------------------
                             12.9.90ev 5.20pm
                             ----------------

Studio."...Children  from  Rochdale  who are  involved  in  allegations  of 
ritualistic child abuse. The children were made wards of court after claims 
that  they  had been subjected to emotional and  sometimes  physical  abuse 
during  whats  been loosley termed "satanic" rituals.  Five  children  have 
since  been returned to their parents.  Meanwhile the director of  S.S.  in 
nearby  Manchester confirmed today that 13 children there have  been  taken 
into care since late last year in connection of similar allegations, though 
there  is no direct link with the Rochdale  investigation.  P.A.I.N.  claim 
that recommendations in the Buttler-Shloss inquiry into events in Cleavland 
wernt  followed in Rochdale,  their chairman,  David  Monk,  outlined   his 
anxieties..
  David Monk(PAIN)"it's clearly shown that Cleavland was not a one  off.  I 
think  following  Cleavland the Dept of health issued a  guidance  document 
which  is  called  "working  together" and  whats  happend  is  some  local 
authorities have incorporated those recommenations into their policies, but 
other authorities have virtually ignored  them."

Studio  "Where  do  you  say  Rochdale  did'nt  follow  the  Buttler/shloss 
recommendations?"

D.M.  "..Well  I think there was some fundamental principals  inshrined  in 
those recommendations,  one of which was that parents should be involved in 
case conferences. And I understand that in Rochdale they were not notified, 
either verbally or in writing, or given the right to attend. As a result of 
that they were,  they did'nt infact have their basic human rights of   hear 
the allegations and be able to make reply to those allegation,  they did'nt 
have those met.  Secondly,ermm,  we are concerned about the length of  time 
that seems to have been taken over the investigaive interviews,  ermm,  and 
in fact after six months of the children removed from their parents and not 
having access to their parents some of those investigative assessements are 
still taking place,  and we would suggest there need to be a time limit  on 
that."

Studio." What do you want this enquiry to establish?"

D.M.  "I think that one of the things we would like from the enquiry is  to 
suggest  that  some of these guidlines that the dept of  health  have  been 
laying  down  need to have some power behind them and perhapes need  to  be 
statutory. "

Studio  "Some  of the details of what is alleged to have happend  to  these 
children  are  quite  horrific  is'nt it of the  utmost  concern  that  the 
children  should  be  protected from parents who may be  exposing  them  to 
allsorts of..very strange things. Is'nt that the primary concern of S.S.?"

D.M." That must be the primary concern,  but there is a danger that if  you 
remove  children  for  six months,  and not allow  them  accsess  to  their 
parents,  and they turn out to have been normal loving parents,  the  abuse 
that you will have done to that child could be as great or greater than the 
abuse you are trying to protect them from.

Studio "David Monk,  chairman of PAIN. Well Bob Lewis is honorary secretary 
of the association of directors of social services,  and he's taken a close 
interest in the case. I asked him if he would welcome an official enquiry."




Bob Lewis "I think the call is very premature. First of all as I understand 
it  the S.S.  committee in Rochdale are to recieve a report  tomorrow,  and 
they will have to obviously will have to make a decision as to wether  they 
are  satisfied  with  the  way in which their  staff  have  delt  with  the 
investigation so far.  Secondly I would remind you as against in  Cleavland 
the  local authority approching magistrates and obtaining place  of  safety 
orders,  and  interim  care  orders,  which  are  more  difficult,  if  not 
immpossible to challenge.  In Rochdales case they did go to the high court, 
they wardship initialy only ran for 21 days and they had to go back to  the 
high  court  with fer,,,  with the evidence that gave them concern  and  to 
prove to the judge that they had grounds for their concern.  And of  course 
in  a  wardship  case  it is possible for a  parent  or  another  party  to 
challenge the wardship ruling at any time."

Studio "Bob Lewis"