Cyril Smith

After defending Smith's family it seems that one of them at least still believes that it's a shame he's not alive to defend himself. More like it's a shame he never got prosecuted and sent to prison.

Did anyone else hear Simon Danczuk on radio 4 this morning on Radio 4 discussing these issues. He made two big allegations during the course of the interview.

One was that David Steel knew about the abuse, another was that the abuse carried on past the time frame that the Police are investigating.

David Steel DID know something about the Cambridge House affair, but he put it down to just a friendly smack on the backside, or words to that effect. In the 70's none of the governments had what was really a decent majority, and so the Liberals could at any time be seen as a potential partner in a coalition. That's probably why he was defended in 1970 when the police first sent his file to the DPP. Therefore due to the fact Smith was a big fish in the Liberals, indeed he was Chief Whip of the Liberals for a time, he was investigated by the security people, and possibly the odd file might have gone missing.

I really think there is a lot to come out, and it could involve many people involved in defending Smith from prosecution.

If a lot of people did know. I hope they are revealed and dealt with like the Social Workers are going to be in Rochdale if all aligations are correct as alleged.

Chill37 wrote:Did anyone else hear Simon Danczuk on radio 4 this morning on Radio 4 discussing these issues. He made two big allegations during the course of the interview.

One was that David Steel knew about the abuse, another was that the abuse carried on past the time frame that the Police are investigating.

Chill37: Yes and I heard Mr Danczuk 'back peddle' somewhat on Radio 2, after suggesting that the Liberal Party should hold an investigation. This was thankfully followed by some consensus that 'this' is not about party politics.



Example: 'The Labour leader of Rochdale Council, Colin Lambert, said he had informed police about claims made against Sir Cyril in 1999 and was examining whether the council could have done more to support those claims at the time.

Mr Lambert said he had reported claims of Sir Cyril being involved in the abuse of children at a residential school to GMP in 1999, while serving as a councillor.'


Then we had Colin Lambert on both the Regional and National News, giving his verbal account of his own reporting to the police. His closing suggestion was that the police now get on with tackling the sexual abuse issues across the country. I don't think this is a suitable conclusion at all to the contents of Colin Lambert's statements, his televised interviews and any victims concerned.


I believe he should account far more, in detail, and 'formally,' also in his capacity as a Corporate Parent, for his own endeavours on behalf of those abused children in a Rochdale residential school.

teamplayer2 wrote:If a lot of people did know. I hope they are revealed and dealt with like the Social Workers are going to be in Rochdale if all aligations are correct as alleged.

Can I assume you are referring to those 'people' whose job it was to 'look after' the children and not just 'those that knew' (like me for example) but who had no real proof of the veracity of the 'allegations' or who would have been listened to (being a mere plebe). Hmmm? This was the 1960's remember. Corporal punishment was practiced throughout our society with abandonment and impunity. Spare the rod - ruin the child. Make sure you try the coat on first before qualifying its quality.

Atlas wrote:

teamplayer2 wrote:If a lot of people did know. I hope they are revealed and dealt with like the Social Workers are going to be in Rochdale if all aligations are correct as alleged.

Can I assume you are referring to those 'people' whose job it was to 'look after' the children and not just 'those that knew' (like me for example) but who had no real proof of the veracity of the 'allegations' or who would have been listened to (being a mere plebe). Hmmm? This was the 1960's remember. Corporal punishment was practiced throughout our society with abandonment and impunity. Spare the rod - ruin the child. Make sure you try the coat on first before qualifying its quality.

Somehow I doubt that sexual abuse was legal back then Atlas, really depends on which rod you're sparing and it seems he abused quite a few. The police today have gone over the details of what was available to the police back then and have said there was enough evidence back then to lock him up.

Lots of people knew what he was doing and turned a blind eye, I do hope they are shaking in their boots just now when it all comes out.

It has by no means been established that the abuse was of a 'sexual' nature. As described to me it would have appeared to have been more along the lines of 'physical' with only 'possible' sexual connotations. I never heard of anything other than 'smacking' along the lines of 'punishment'. My problem with the 'stories' of the time was that Cyril Smith had no authority to administer such 'abuse' which as I understood things should have been carried out (if really necessary) by the 'warden' of the establishment. Talk of pedophilia should be left from the equation until 'ALL' the facts of this case are throughly established. Then and ONLY then should the law take its course. Meanwhile much is only conjecture.

Atlas wrote:It has by no means been established that the abuse was of a 'sexual' nature. As described to me it would have appeared to have been more along the lines of 'physical' with only 'possible' sexual connotations. I never heard of anything other than 'smacking' along the lines of 'punishment'. My problem with the 'stories' of the time was that Cyril Smith had no authority to administer such 'abuse' which as I understood things should have been carried out (if really necessary) by the 'warden' of the establishment. Talk of pedophilia should be left from the equation until 'ALL' the facts of this case are throughly established. Then and ONLY then should the law take its course. Meanwhile much is only conjecture.

The police are pretty sure it was sexual abuse Atlas or they would not have released a statement to that effect, they also say there was enough evidence at the time to take it to court.

I believe the police have just as many lessons to learn on subjects like this, if you hide or ignore wrong doings it will come back and bite, as in Hillsborough, Jimmy Savile, and now Smith, if the evidence is there do it when they are alive and don’t wait to be told what they should have done it.

Atlas wrote:It has by no means been established that the abuse was of a 'sexual' nature. As described to me it would have appeared to have been more along the lines of 'physical' with only 'possible' sexual connotations. I never heard of anything other than 'smacking' along the lines of 'punishment'. My problem with the 'stories' of the time was that Cyril Smith had no authority to administer such 'abuse' which as I understood things should have been carried out (if really necessary) by the 'warden' of the establishment. Talk of pedophilia should be left from the equation until 'ALL' the facts of this case are throughly established. Then and ONLY then should the law take its course. Meanwhile much is only conjecture.

So you think smacking the bare bottoms of teenage boys is OK ? Cyril was not therefore a paedophile he was just helping the head to dole out punishment. Very noble of him as a governor to assist the school in that way. All talk of sexual gratification is nonsense is it?
Fortunately for society the police don't think so neither do the newspapers and the vast majority of the sane. His activities
have been condemned even by his family. It was only a matter of time before someone tried to defend him, let's hope you are in a minority of one.

...until all facts are fully established...

We need an investigation, not a witch hunt.

The 'usual suspects' have crucified him already. I'm not saying he is innocent, but even he deserves due process.

johnb wrote:...until all facts are fully established...

We need an investigation, not a witch hunt.

The 'usual suspects' have crucified him already. I'm not saying he is innocent, but even he deserves due process.

I totally agree J.B.

I agree, lets find out just how many Smith abused and find out if any any abuses were carried out by him in other places other than Cambridge House.

Where have I defended him Past it? What makes you think anything I said is in his defense other than due process? You may call him what you will. I will reserve my opinion until all the facts are known.

No Hinch I do not think it is alright to smack or beat bare buttocks - not even between friends. Not my thing at all. Although I have seen it done on two occasions. Admittedly the boys were infants and the teacher a bullying brute - and even then I didn't think it was right - as my books say and you already know. But as to 'sexual abuse' - well - that has deeper meanings from my point of view. At least he was a bully and had something not quite right in his head at worst - let' see what the 'real' end result brings before we make use of the tumbrel shall we.

The facts, if a judicial investigation takes place and it is not certain it will, can only come from those who were abused and any witnesses. The defence if there is one will have to come from others. Cyril Smith cannot enter a plea, neither can anyone else.
At what time will you and any other doubters as to Cyril's guilt decide he did do all those things?
The police say there is overwhelming evidence that he is guilty but if no investigation takes place you and others like you can say for ever that he was not guilty of anything.

Some very Stalinist elements here...

From the evidence, properly presented by the victims it will be possible to form a reasonable view.

The big regret is that this was not handled properly at the time, particularly since there are now very few witnesses from the management side to give evidence one way or the other.

Knowl View presents a better opportunity, since other staff and management are still around. I would also suggest that some examination is carried out on 'Rochdale Childer' and 'Rochdale Youth Orchestra'.

It's all very well Labour wringing their collective hands over this now, but they were as complicit as anyone else at the time in keeping all this under wraps. Cyril Smith was originally one of theirs!

johnb wrote:Some very Stalinist elements here...

It's all very well Labour wringing their collective hands over this now, but they were as complicit as anyone else at the time in keeping all this under wraps. Cyril Smith was originally one of theirs!

Anyone who tries to use these events to score political points is, in my opinion, beyond the pale.

This is about abuse and the child victims of abuse.

Cyril abused young boys and without his political connections he would have been charged. I do not care if his colours were red, yellow, blue or green. It has no relevance with regard to his actions.

I couldn't agree more Sparky, which is why I find the headlong charge by the left to hang, draw and quarter him BEFORE due process has taken place singularly sickening - almost as sickening as the Liberal Democrat continuing denials.

johnb wrote:...until all facts are fully established...

We need an investigation, not a witch hunt.

The 'usual suspects' have crucified him already. I'm not saying he is innocent, but even he deserves due process.

In other words lets not believe these victims again, they could be wrong. I suspect that's how he got away with it in the past.

So basically anyone believing Smith was guilty of abusing young lads, is either a Stalinist, a left winger or a Labour party member, according to John B. I have never really regarded GNP as left wingers or LP supporting, and in general they are not seen as Stalinist.

As far as I am aware Labour had got rid of Smith before any accusations came to light, though there are some in the LP who had their suspicions of him. Jack McCann knew something, because Smith went crying to him to help him went when the police started to investigate him, but of course he would have kept confidential what he discussed with Smith. All what's really known is that they met, and it's SUSPECTED but not really known McCann spoke with government ministers about the case.

As far as I am concerned it'd NOT whether Smith was an abuser, but how much he did. It is now claimed by a LIBERAL of the time that he was abused in the House of Commons by Smith, in Smith's office, as well as other places including on the moors. If this is true, then due to the DPP failing to prosecute Smith first time round, he was allowed to commit even more vile acts.

According to the police they are sure he committed acts at Cambridge House and Knowl View. I really hope others come forward if victims of this man. The true extent of his crimes may never be known. And was it just young people he abused, he often visited elderly, frail people, I just hope he never abused any of them too. It may just have been young lads and boys he was interested in.

Irishman wrote:

johnb wrote:...until all facts are fully established...

We need an investigation, not a witch hunt.

The 'usual suspects' have crucified him already. I'm not saying he is innocent, but even he deserves due process.

In other words lets not believe these victims again, they could be wrong. I suspect that's how he got away with it in the past.

Indeed, that's how bullies and rapists etc get away with such things.

Spartacus wrote:

johnb wrote:Some very Stalinist elements here...

It's all very well Labour wringing their collective hands over this now, but they were as complicit as anyone else at the time in keeping all this under wraps. Cyril Smith was originally one of theirs!

Anyone who tries to use these events to score political points is, in my opinion, beyond the pale.

This is about abuse and the child victims of abuse.

Cyril abused young boys and without his political connections he would have been charged. I do not care if his colours were red, yellow, blue or green. It has no relevance with regard to his actions.

I don't think many if any have tried to score political points over this matter, at least on this message board. Unfortunately it was only left leaning journals, media who in the past tried to highlight what he had done to get justice, while his supporters including the local rag and his political colleagues and friends/family rubbished everything and anything that anybody tried to highlight on the issue. That was until his friend Saville being exposed, and then yes our MP brought the matter up. Whether or not the police would have got involved without our MPs involvement we don't know, but I am glad he did. Of course now all sorts of media has now got on the case, shame these publications could not have joined with the courageous RAP and Private Eye at the time.


You are right that because of his political connections he got away with things, he was a very big fish in a very small party, so he was very important, so some made sure he was defended.

There is a very quaint concept in British justice. It is called presumption of innocence.

The view from some people on this site that it is a matter of "how much" not "whether" drives a coach and horses through this pillar of law.

Now while there are those who would say this is no more than he deserves -because of Stephan Kisco and other issues I would disagree - we are not defined by how properly we treat the deserving in cases like this, but by how properly we treat the undeserving. Therefore, no matter how much we are convinced what happened, we must go through proper process, with proper presumption.

When results are finally known for certain (or as certain as we can be in a case like this) we can act and decide accordingly, and I hope most fervently that action will extend to bringing proper justice to those who prevented proper investigation when the allegations were made. That delay in itself caused much potential for further abuse, and those who let him roam free are also culpable.

johnb wrote:There is a very quaint concept in British justice. It is called presumption of innocence.

The view from some people on this site that it is a matter of "how much" not "whether" drives a coach and horses through this pillar of law.

Now while there are those who would say this is no more than he deserves -because of Stephan Kisco and other issues I would disagree - we are not defined by how properly we treat the deserving in cases like this, but by how properly we treat the undeserving. Therefore, no matter how much we are convinced what happened, we must go through proper process, with proper presumption.

When results are finally known for certain (or as certain as we can be in a case like this) we can act and decide accordingly, and I hope most fervently that action will extend to bringing proper justice to those who prevented proper investigation when the allegations were made. That delay in itself caused much potential for further abuse, and those who let him roam free are also culpable.

Unfortunately Mr Smith’s victims have been denied due process of the law Johnb, I know two wrongs don’t make a right but justice for them will never be as Smith is dead now but at least we can give them something, we could actually believe they were abused. I suspect many more just don’t have the nerve to come forward, why does that not surprise me?