Cyril Smith - the revellations
Discussion
There's a book about to be published, not by me, on the cover-up of Smith's crimes:
Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker
Exhaustively researched I'm told.
It is not a band-wagon book. I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years, and it had been started long before that.
Worth keeping an eye open for it.
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Smile-For-Camera-S...
Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker
Exhaustively researched I'm told.
It is not a band-wagon book. I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years, and it had been started long before that.
Worth keeping an eye open for it.
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Smile-For-Camera-S...
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 9th April 16:34
Derek Smith said:
There's a book about to be published, not by me, on the cover-up of Smith's crimes:
Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker
Exhaustively researched I'm told.
I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years...
What was your connection with Cyril Smith, Derek (ie why did the author of the new book question you?)Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker
Exhaustively researched I'm told.
I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years...
Tony2or4 said:
Derek Smith said:
There's a book about to be published, not by me, on the cover-up of Smith's crimes:
Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker
Exhaustively researched I'm told.
I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years...
What was your connection with Cyril Smith, Derek (ie why did the author of the new book question you?)Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker
Exhaustively researched I'm told.
I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years...
Tony2or4 said:
What was your connection with Cyril Smith, Derek (ie why did the author of the new book question you?)
Second question first: Google. There was a thread on here about Smith a year or so ago.My part in Cyril Smith's lack of downfall was, to say the least, minor.
I was an instructor at HQ. I worked with a woman who was a brilliant facilitator, made the rest of us look amateur. Which we were to be fair. She ran specialist course for sexual offences, vulnerable people, domestic violence and such. She inspired her students. I went to the library around 8 pm one night to find it full of her students, all excitedly talking about the day's lessons. Never happened with my classes.
She was trying to get over the importance of the surfeit of evidence required in cases where offenders had influence. She mentioned Cyril Smith and another name - which I can't, in all honesty remember, although I'm fairly certain who he is, lets call him Biggs - where there had been over 144 complaints of child abuse yet there had been no prosecution. There was no mention of SB or MI5, just the need for overwhelming evidence. There was the horror of the offences against so many children and the emphasis was on the kids being ultra vulnerable as there was no one to turn to and the horrible pun of a gross and gross indecency made it even more macabre.
This was over 25 years ago but I remember it still so it proves her technique was spot on.
One morning I was dragged into an office by my Chief Inspector, whom I got on well with, liking the bloke and having a lot of respect for him, to be told that if I ever mentioned the name of Biggs 'again' in class - note that Smith wasn't mentioned - or anyone else involved in the case, it would be viewed very seriously and I could lose my job. I started to argue, no reason to change a lifetime's habits, but the CI advised me to 'just leave it there. There's nothing I can do. This is serious.'
I mean, leave it there. I was a police officer. As if any would.
All of us, apart from the two traffic trainers, got the warning, but the female instructor was treated much more seriously. She was distraught, really upset.
I didn't want to push it with her so asked around and then phoned Rochdale to ask to speak with someone on the child abuse team and said why. I was told it had been disbanded but I was asked for my home phone number.
I was phoned by someone who said they were on the enquiry into Smith before it was shut down. I don't know if (s)he was of course, but why phone if not? They didn't give a name.
It was apparent that he thought I had useful information for her/him and he didn't hide his disappointment very well. But he told me that the file had 'gone missing', much to the disgust of the team. He felt that the evidence against Smith was overwhelming. I told him of the warning and he said that they had sent information from the file, more or less the disclosure, to specialists in other forces, and I presume this would have included our instructor. She was well known.
I asked him if the warning, of dismissal, was to be believed and he said that this went 'to the top'. Clearly, not a chief constable and no one would suggest they were at the top. He said he'd given up pushing and was merely waiting, but said something like 'no one wants to know'. That sort of thing. The person was not so much angry by the blocking of the case as despondent.
It got in the papers around that time but without any real energy. This was the second time it was exposed, there being something in the papers around the time I joined the police, in the middle 70s. But no one bothered.
I phoned the Met Federation (ours at the time were sycophants to the management) about the threat. I got an inspector who said that from what he'd heard, it was serious but that unless I did something really wrong, it was an empty one. But I should take care. I was at that time under the impression that I had a career in the service so took care to the extent of not mentioning it again.
The clever use of the 'other person', Biggs, although there were a few in the cabal of abusers I believe, was clever(ish). The only persons to mention Smith were those being threatened but he was there in the background all the time.
It is clear that the evidence against Smith was overwhelming. It is clear that the abuse was systematic. It is clear that it was well known that he abused kids. It was clear that he had powerful friends. It was clear that the distress of a few kids, into the hundreds by the time he stopped, was not felt to be important enough to create a scandal. It was clear that the press were not that bothered at the time despite information being fed to them.
What was never resolved was how the information got from the classroom to the powers that be(friended and protected child abusers). You could see why it was viewed as dangerous though as everything that was said to the students was proveable. If, as happened there, a number of victims unconnected with one another, and over a long period of time, came up with identical complaints then this can be used as evidence of itself.
Cyril Smith was being used as the front man on a big advertising campaign by a big bank. I moved my account and then was told that there was a letter writing campaign to the bank criticising their choice of front man. Loads of police officers did it, including me. I got a couple of friends, non police, to do it as well. I stated that I had moved my account because of him, a lie but in the context of Smith, not a big one. The adverts had a short run.
But he'd got his money. He'd won. The 30-stone thug had got away with an horrendous series of offences against children.
So not a massive connection with Smith, but one which stuck in my mind. The facilitator was picked on again for something and after a while left Sussex and went to the Central Planning Unit. She then set up a business teaching and is currently in Africa, do something for scouts I believe.
She was too good a facilitator to be of any use in the service. The uninspired, the likes of me, were what they wanted. It doesn't do to have progressive ideas, like teaching the things that students need to know.
I noted a while back that the police were getting the blame for not prosecuting Smith. Perhaps they should speak with the officer on the case, as I did.
Derek Smith said:
One morning I was dragged into an office by my Chief Inspector, whom I got on well with, liking the bloke and having a lot of respect for him, to be told that if I ever mentioned the name of Biggs 'again' in class - note that Smith wasn't mentioned - or anyone else involved in the case, it would be viewed very seriously and I could lose my job. I started to argue, no reason to change a lifetime's habits, but the CI advised me to 'just leave it there. There's nothing I can do. This is serious.'
In my view anyone who orders a cover up is guilty of the same offence as that covered up and should be jailed accordingly. Or in this case shot.Interesting. The bit at the end (below) made me laugh though...sounds like a description of the public sector generally, including local authorities.
Derek Smith said:
She was too good a facilitator to be of any use in the service. The uninspired, the likes of me, were what they wanted. It doesn't do to have progressive ideas, like teaching the things that students need to know.
.Guybrush said:
Interesting. The bit at the end (below) made me laugh though...sounds like a description of the public sector generally, including local authorities.
The idea that the public sector rejects new ideas and progressive thought is difficult to support. If you look and state schools, most of the teachers were more than willing to opt for teaching methods that were proven to be better than the historical systems, those that I was subjected to. In the secondary school that all four of my kids went to the teaching methods progressed steadily as the time went on. There seemed to be little resentment.Derek Smith said:
She was too good a facilitator to be of any use in the service. The uninspired, the likes of me, were what they wanted. It doesn't do to have progressive ideas, like teaching the things that students need to know.
Now, of course, we have Gove, who seems intent on negating all progress and reverting to failed methods purely because, oddly, they are old-fashioned.
Derek Smith, your third post reminds me of DC Shirley Thompson and William Goad in Devon. She was told to sit on the investigation, told not to follow up the leads. She had to go to the BBC's Panorama as she was so unhappy about it. Like the case you mention, the policy book used for the decision making process into that investigation has been lost.
It's all deeply saddening.
It's all deeply saddening.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff