News3 mins ago
3 Investigations Into Cyril Smith Were Nobbled Apparently
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-manch ester-2 8338402
Its all in Simon Danczuk's book.....I urge anyone interested to read it without delay :::
" Smile for the Camera....The double life of Cyril Smith "
Its all in Simon Danczuk's book.....I urge anyone interested to read it without delay :::
" Smile for the Camera....The double life of Cyril Smith "
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Of course Tilly and thanks.
Danczuk has opened a can or worms here and not before time.
http:// www.tel egraph. co.uk/c ulture/ books/b ookrevi ews/107 96249/S mile-fo r-the-C amera-T he-Doub le-Life -of-Cyr il-Smit h-by-Si mon-Dan czuk-an d-Matth ew-Bake r-revie w.html
The book is definitely worth ordering from the Library. I read in it a weekend. Its not heavy in any way but it tells the truth. Did you know that in his spare time from his paedophile activities, Smith tried to frustrate legislation on asbestos...because he had shares in the leading asbestos company that existed in Rochdale, that was busy killing his own constituents as fast as it could ? He did all in his power to stop important Health and Safety laws being passed, and denied that asbestos was any danger at all.
Horrible old man.
Danczuk has opened a can or worms here and not before time.
http://
The book is definitely worth ordering from the Library. I read in it a weekend. Its not heavy in any way but it tells the truth. Did you know that in his spare time from his paedophile activities, Smith tried to frustrate legislation on asbestos...because he had shares in the leading asbestos company that existed in Rochdale, that was busy killing his own constituents as fast as it could ? He did all in his power to stop important Health and Safety laws being passed, and denied that asbestos was any danger at all.
Horrible old man.
Well, as an atheist ferlew, I have no belief in hell.
What I want to see is the names of all the "establishment" figures that intervened and stopped Smith's investigation, as well as the names, dead or alive, of all the people that abused boys alongside him. Because it is patently obvious that he wasn't a one-man band.
He was a regular attendee at the Elm Guest House as well, until he was banned because he broke a toilet seat apparently.
What I want to see is the names of all the "establishment" figures that intervened and stopped Smith's investigation, as well as the names, dead or alive, of all the people that abused boys alongside him. Because it is patently obvious that he wasn't a one-man band.
He was a regular attendee at the Elm Guest House as well, until he was banned because he broke a toilet seat apparently.
Neither can I ferlew, but there is something that can be done.
We can re-double our efforts to make sure that the activities of the likes of Smith, Saville and Co are not repeated again in the future. See my other post tonight concerning child sexual abuse on South Wales.
We need to listen to the children. One of the most poignant parts of Danczuk's book is where he describes how grown men, in their 50's and 60's, broke down in front of him, telling their stories. Most of then complained at the time but were not taken seriously, so they themselves felt as if they were guilty.
We can re-double our efforts to make sure that the activities of the likes of Smith, Saville and Co are not repeated again in the future. See my other post tonight concerning child sexual abuse on South Wales.
We need to listen to the children. One of the most poignant parts of Danczuk's book is where he describes how grown men, in their 50's and 60's, broke down in front of him, telling their stories. Most of then complained at the time but were not taken seriously, so they themselves felt as if they were guilty.
I think the three investigations were nobbled because according to the criteria of the time, they were crap.....
The current criteria for taking these cases to court is
X did something awful to me !
X: not I didnt !
decision OK off it goes to court.....
lowish conviction rate, and the cure is.... bring more cases....
we have forgotten that ex-kid who said Lord thingey abused him
and when he was shown the photograph of Ld T
said Oh that wasnt him - he just said he was....
This at least shows people get it wrong....I think around 50% of the time
The current criteria for taking these cases to court is
X did something awful to me !
X: not I didnt !
decision OK off it goes to court.....
lowish conviction rate, and the cure is.... bring more cases....
we have forgotten that ex-kid who said Lord thingey abused him
and when he was shown the photograph of Ld T
said Oh that wasnt him - he just said he was....
This at least shows people get it wrong....I think around 50% of the time
Rubbish PP...read the book !
In it you will find an account given by some Police officers that their offices were raided by Special Branch and all the evidence that they had amassed about Smith was taken away, never to be seen again. He was investigated many times, over a period of many years, by different Police forces, and the same thing happened every time. These investigations were nobbled. He was being protected by the Great and Good, almost certainly because he knew where the bodies were buried.
Once again, read the book !
Your story about "the kid" who incorrectly identified Lord McAlpine is only half true. This "kid" was abused while in care homes by many men. When he was being interviewed by the Police, they showed him a photo of Lord MacAlpine, and when he said that was the man who raped him, the Police told him that the persons name was MacAlpine.
But they showed him a photo of the wrong MacAlpine. The one who abused him was a local landowner MacAlpine who had boys from the home over to his estate on a regular basis, to do odd jobs. The Police identified the wrong MacAlpine. The one who abused him is now dead.
In it you will find an account given by some Police officers that their offices were raided by Special Branch and all the evidence that they had amassed about Smith was taken away, never to be seen again. He was investigated many times, over a period of many years, by different Police forces, and the same thing happened every time. These investigations were nobbled. He was being protected by the Great and Good, almost certainly because he knew where the bodies were buried.
Once again, read the book !
Your story about "the kid" who incorrectly identified Lord McAlpine is only half true. This "kid" was abused while in care homes by many men. When he was being interviewed by the Police, they showed him a photo of Lord MacAlpine, and when he said that was the man who raped him, the Police told him that the persons name was MacAlpine.
But they showed him a photo of the wrong MacAlpine. The one who abused him was a local landowner MacAlpine who had boys from the home over to his estate on a regular basis, to do odd jobs. The Police identified the wrong MacAlpine. The one who abused him is now dead.
I may be wrong but child abuse only seems to have been prominent in the news for the past 15-20 years. If Cyril Smith's activities had come to light in the 70s/80s wouldn't there have been mass shock about the fact that this sort of behaviour even existed?
Would it not also have severely shaken public confidence in 'the establishment'? (Ditto for any interception of Saville, that early).
Cover up was the routine procedure for prevention of public panic, morale-destroying wartime disasters or anything likely to provoke widespread public disorder. Smith falling into that last category.
I'm speculating here and it would make a weak excuse for cover-up anyway.
Another thing that's changed, since that era, is the age profile of authority figures. Sadly, the names we want named were probably old at the time and may no longer be alive either.
Would it not also have severely shaken public confidence in 'the establishment'? (Ditto for any interception of Saville, that early).
Cover up was the routine procedure for prevention of public panic, morale-destroying wartime disasters or anything likely to provoke widespread public disorder. Smith falling into that last category.
I'm speculating here and it would make a weak excuse for cover-up anyway.
Another thing that's changed, since that era, is the age profile of authority figures. Sadly, the names we want named were probably old at the time and may no longer be alive either.
Well, we will never know will we Hypognosis ?
Because Smith and all the others prominent members of the establishment that raped 10 year old boys were protected by influential friends and colleagues. They didn't escape justice because they were innocent, or that the boys wouldn't have been good witnesses in court. They got off scot-free because the investigations were nobbled and covered up.
But I can say for certainty that had Smith and Saville been prosecuted for raping 10 year old children, they would have been subject to the same loathing and disgust that we ourselves feel now. I have no time whatsoever for this current argument, by a minority, that "things were different back then" No they weren't !
By the way, you are wrong about the "category" that Smith fell into. He was just one of many that were involved in abuse, and he knew where the bodies
were buried. If he had been exposed, lots of others would as well, and that is what protected him. If you are a tree and you want to hide, you go into a forest.
Powerful people are still being protected today, because abuse is still going on. According to the news yesterday, over 600 people have been arrested for internet porn activities, including politicians, Teachers, even Doctors. Lets hope they are successfully prosecuted now, and the same mistakes are not made in the future.
Very interesting link ::::
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -283261 28
Read the book !
Because Smith and all the others prominent members of the establishment that raped 10 year old boys were protected by influential friends and colleagues. They didn't escape justice because they were innocent, or that the boys wouldn't have been good witnesses in court. They got off scot-free because the investigations were nobbled and covered up.
But I can say for certainty that had Smith and Saville been prosecuted for raping 10 year old children, they would have been subject to the same loathing and disgust that we ourselves feel now. I have no time whatsoever for this current argument, by a minority, that "things were different back then" No they weren't !
By the way, you are wrong about the "category" that Smith fell into. He was just one of many that were involved in abuse, and he knew where the bodies
were buried. If he had been exposed, lots of others would as well, and that is what protected him. If you are a tree and you want to hide, you go into a forest.
Powerful people are still being protected today, because abuse is still going on. According to the news yesterday, over 600 people have been arrested for internet porn activities, including politicians, Teachers, even Doctors. Lets hope they are successfully prosecuted now, and the same mistakes are not made in the future.
Very interesting link ::::
http://
Read the book !
The problem is, I always havea problem if someone writes a book. Where have the proceeds gone for instance?
As for Cyril Smith and is ilk there are not words I can use to describe my feeling, however PP does have a point about cases in general.
And the current trend of trial by media is not good or helpful either.
As for Cyril Smith and is ilk there are not words I can use to describe my feeling, however PP does have a point about cases in general.
And the current trend of trial by media is not good or helpful either.
Writers need to be paid for their costs.
Should it just be just more contemporary books or should historical books give money to stop those crimes happening? Should books on Jack the Ripper give money to help prostitution? Should non-fiction books on the Titanic give money to lifeboat care? It might become ridiculous.
Part of the way to stop abuses and so on is education. Writers are not saints (particularly journalists) they are trying to highlight problems in society.
Should it just be just more contemporary books or should historical books give money to stop those crimes happening? Should books on Jack the Ripper give money to help prostitution? Should non-fiction books on the Titanic give money to lifeboat care? It might become ridiculous.
Part of the way to stop abuses and so on is education. Writers are not saints (particularly journalists) they are trying to highlight problems in society.
Where the money goes is a complete red herring. Danczuk is the current MP for Rochdale. He knew that there was a coverup going on over Smith and he has now broken the logjam which has existed for years. He and others have forced the powers to be to take this issue seriously for the first time, and its well over due. Most of Smith's victims are still alive and deserve to have justice done.
Again I say, hopefully for the last time people...read the book. I tried to borrow it again from my Library earlier this week and there is now a 7 week wait !
Again I say, hopefully for the last time people...read the book. I tried to borrow it again from my Library earlier this week and there is now a 7 week wait !
No Mickey, where the money goes is a very valid point.
People who want to sell books will embellish facts or even worse fiction becomes fact in order to sell more.
I am not saying it did happen here, but why write a book that you will make money from if your intention is simply to highlight something? As an MP he must have had other 'non profit' ways of doing this.
But having said that I am glad it is being exposed.
People who want to sell books will embellish facts or even worse fiction becomes fact in order to sell more.
I am not saying it did happen here, but why write a book that you will make money from if your intention is simply to highlight something? As an MP he must have had other 'non profit' ways of doing this.
But having said that I am glad it is being exposed.
quite a bit of this seems to have been borderline at worst. Spanking for instance was both normal and legal, and not something that anyone would ever have been arrested for. That he found it sexually exciting would have made no difference (it still wouldn't today, if you were doing something legal).
Its being exposed alright !
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-manch ester-2 8368715
jno...I find your views on spanking are as abhorrent as the act itself. There is ample evidence that Smith and others severely sexually abused many young boys, spread out over 40 years, at least. It has been said that Smith wasn't interested in boys much over the age of 15 or 16, as he preferred tight sphincters. Some of the boys parents actually called this monster in to chastise their sons. Its too disgusting for words. Read the book and learn some uncomfortable but highly important facts.
http://
jno...I find your views on spanking are as abhorrent as the act itself. There is ample evidence that Smith and others severely sexually abused many young boys, spread out over 40 years, at least. It has been said that Smith wasn't interested in boys much over the age of 15 or 16, as he preferred tight sphincters. Some of the boys parents actually called this monster in to chastise their sons. Its too disgusting for words. Read the book and learn some uncomfortable but highly important facts.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.