Cyril Smith - the revellations

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

Derek, I think Clegg wants your help and that of your colleagues that were around when you knew of it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612630/Fi...

We may get to see you in front of some parliamentary committee with Keith Vaz.

I've Radio 4 on. Seems there's some event at the Vatican with two clerics getting promotions. They're discussing Popes and sexual abuse of minors.

The DM is suggesting that it was a libdem cover-up. I don't see that. They might well have been complicit and even expressed concern to those with the power to sideline the file, but in reality it has to be someone else. The government of the day, or at least a certain level of it, must have known.

If it is a police enquiry, they'll probably phone me, realise I have nothing of evidential value, and move on. The good thing though is that those who have, over the years, protested that they were victims will already get something from the latest revelations.

I saw a film once, black and white, where a kid was in a bed in a dorm and he heard the sound of footsteps coming up stairs. It frightened me at the time, although I wasn't fully aware of the implications. Now I am it is difficult to get the image out of my mind.

[Derek Smith]

rover 623gsi said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-28...

unreal that the bd got away with it

It's not really. Those with power and authority will use it, misuse it, to further their ambitions, often merely to indulge illicit desires or to gain more power. There have been life peers who have been exposed as child molesters and have had no real encumbrance to their position in society. We've had MPs who have been caught with their hands in the till, or their snouts in a trough, or abusing their trust who are called on to comment on the morals of others. There was a fine example of this only yesterday. We've had cabinet ministers refuse to comply with the rules of the house and who are still out there, mping.

We get the Profumo Affair and the one bloke who comes out of it with least stain on him is the titular bloke. Indeed, he comes out with a degree of credit. The establishment went to town on one poor chap, just to show how honest and upstanding they were, and now we know that probably the same proportion were stealing, buggering children, indulging strange illegal desires and ruining the lives of others.

How they must have laughed.

Still, as someone on another thread suggested, it is all right for this mob to read our personal correspondence as there are laws to protect us and that the MP know best.

Hardly unreal at all. In fact, the norm.

I've mentioned it before, so I'll mention it again: a colleague was threatened over Smith and she felt obliged to leave the police. She was the best instructor I'd ever seen, but because of Smith's powerful guardians, she was the one pushed around. Yet, compared to what happened to others in the case, her problems are minor. In fact, she's now running her own business and also a large charity. But she was bullied and threatened by those in authority and their guardians.

And it is still going one.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin]erek Smith said:

We get the Profumo Affair and the one bloke who comes out of it with least stain on him is the titular bloke. Indeed, he comes out with a degree of credit. The establishment went to town on one poor chap, just to show how honest and upstanding they were, and now we know that probably the same proportion were stealing, buggering children, indulging strange illegal desires and ruining the lives of others.

How they must have laughed.
quote]


An accurate picture of the awful system at it's worst. However, to call Profumo 'one poor chap' is a stretch. To portray someone in his job, with his responsibilities and with so much to lose even in spite of his 'friends', as a poor chap, rather misses the point. He deserved everything he got - surprised it wasn't more. He also deserved all the credit he got for the exemplary life he led afterwards: suitable remorse one assumes. I wonder if his family ever lived it down but then prior to being discovered that didn't seem to matter much to him.

It wasn't Profumo whom I meant as 'the one poor chap'.

Profumo was punished quite heavily as he lost his job and his position in life - but deserved it I suppose. His wife was a film actress and she weathered the storm. He was occasionally (I have no idea how often, but I saw him) down the East End where he was treated as a hero by the vagrants and the locals.

He learned from his mistake. So good on him. He deserved his honour.

[Derek Smith]

wc98 said:

any suggestions as to how to stop it derek . i am of the dragging and burning persuasion but appreciate we do not have enough french people in the uk to make much of a success of that.

That is the most depressing part in all of this: there is nothing we can do.

Revolution is pointless: why replace one lot of self-servers with another?

Evolution doesn't work: as threats to the establishment surface, they are dealt with. We have Leveson and we have the restrictions on Google. We, the plebs, had a glimpse of being able to discover things about people easily and quickly. When the PCC elections came up I treated them seriously (seriously I did - farcical) and I searched on individuals to see what I could find. Now, of course, Google is nothing more than a PR exercise, and this has come about without any fuss at all. We, the people, cannot be trusted with information. I mean, we might wander off and discover things.

Now if you want to discover who it was who was tried and convicted for child abuse, Google might not let you.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

More Spookiness?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-2859...

"He bawled me out. He was rude and offensive and hostile."

That rings true.

That said, when I was told off it was more of a case of: You'd best take care 'cause there's nothing we can do if they catch you saying such stuff.

MI5 have a job to do and the 70s in NI were, if I remember, somewhat fraught. I can see the point of running the offenders but not letting them continue. If they did that, then we should know.

[Derek Smith]

In those days, the stifling of the press meant that the information could not surface. If there was info about, for instance, a tory MP then labour could not reveal it for their advantage as they had their own MPs who were involved.

Nowadays we have the internet and it is difficult to remember how it was in those days when you had not outlet as most papers were part of the establishment.

Whilst the DM slags off the police, one wonders where they were at the time. It would appear that everyone knew yet no one did anything.

I spoke with a detective involved in the enquiry into Smith, the one that went missing. My question was: What are you going to do now? The reply was: What can we do?

With MI6, MI5 and SB all concentrating on what was a civil war and then the threat to democracy of the miners' strike, any revelations which might show parliament in a bad light were obviously to be suppressed for the good of the nation as the mps see themselves as the nation.

What is surprising is the level of paedophile behaviour in the world, including this country. It makes you wonder which judges liked to interfere with little kids, which senior officers, which senior military.

There was an inspector who I worked with on occasion who suddenly left the job. It turned out that his computer had paedophile images on it. Deleted but no sufficiently.

The level of corruption is quite shocking. The level of protection is a scandal.

[Derek Smith]

dudleybloke said:

Police should have arrested the nonces and also those protecting them.
Illegal orders are still illegal.

It's not that simple of course.

If the senior investigating officer is told not to arrest without permission of a senior officer then that is a lawful order unless the SIO has evidence to suggested complicity then he has to follow orders. It is a disciplined service and officers have to follow orders. It is a discipline offence to fail to do so. A lawful order has been defined as an order that is not unlawful, meaning that the lower ranking officer has the burden of proof, along with all the other burdens.

In the case of the Smith and others file, the officers completed their investigation as far as they were able and submitted the file to the CPS. It was returned with 'recommendations', i.e. they will do such and such or else the file will go nowhere. The recommendations were complied with, the file submitted and the officers awaited the outcome. Or rather some did. Others were sent onto other roles.

Police could have arrested anyone of course, if they had sufficient cause, and from what I understand, there was ample. But if they are told not to in the course of the enquiry then that's it.

It has long been my suspicion that senior police officers, senior judges, MPs, high ranking military and the other bastions of the establishment are all but untouchable without the assistance of their peers (literally in some cases). There have been a few cases, in particular for homosexual acts with consenting adults, but beyond that it is very difficult to obtain a conviction.

Nowadays it is even more difficult for an individual officer to make a difference with the restrictions on discretion and such forced on the service.

I once arrested a prostitute for throwing a pint of beer at a police officer who'd been asked by a licensee to stand by during an eviction from premises. The officer said that her relief in avoiding the beer was shortlived as she ducked into the trajectory of the glass.

The woman was searched and it was down to me to document the contents of her handbag. Included was a notebook, hard backed. In it were names that I recognised, together with a star system for assessment, probably where Amazon got it from, and also comments as to 'preferences'.

After reading a couple of pages I showed it to my sergeant who sealed it in it's own numbered bag, with his and my signature over the seal. We then both went to the safe and placed it in there.

The sergeant said, in those pre lottery days: 'That's the nearest you and I will ever come to winning the pools.'

I was told to forget that I ever saw the book, and I have. However, I have little doubt that the great and the good do have some weird tastes and habits. I met some of them subsequently and it was very tempting to drop a keyword or two into the conversation.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

I wonder when the first "not in the public interest" waffle will be trotted out.

I think you missed it, it was back in the 70s.

[Derek Smith]

I don't see the party any particular offender being a problem. They are all have their fair share of those in the gutter so the other party will not make too many waves. The UKIP is unlikely to be much of a problem.

On top of that, the newspapers in those days were part of the establishment, and in a big way and it is likely that information in the hands of the parties might be enough to ensure things are not covered excessively.

What we need is not necessarily to prosecute but some way to stop such abuse happening, because such things are still going on. Funding for protection services has been cut back tremendously.

Vicars in Ireland and the rest of Europe, those in other forms of authority in this country: exposure of offenders will perhaps allow closure by the victims and education for the masses. We should not trust these bds. We need to check and check again. Nothing should be redacted or closed for a couple of generations.

[Derek Smith]

BillPeart said:

If anyone doubts what those in authority can and are prepared to do to protect their ilk, listen to the download of the radio 4 programme "Jeremy Thorpe - the silent conspiracy" aired this evening.

Based partly on investigations Tom Mangold conducted years ago, that were also sat on, "for legal reasons"! The level of dishonesty and culpability - including in potential attempted murders - is staggering. And most got away with it... dead or largely forgotten now, but full on troughers at the time.

The police and government prosecutions department of the time are criticised, quite rightly, for doing nothing. The excuse seems to be that they would be taken to task for going after someone as well regarded as Thorpe.

Fast forward to 2014 and the police are severely criticised for going against a singer because he's well regarded.

There are also lots of allegations against the CPS for, apparently, using the same prosecutions limits for disc jockeys and the like as they do for the hoi poloi.

The conclusion that there was no conspiracy because it was always done that way is rather frightening because, in essence, nothing has changed.

Those in authority have specialist units there to protect them. The fear is that these units see their role as extending to protection against all challenges. Again there is no specific conspiracy in the main, although the withdrawal of charges, evidence and files needs some form of illegal act. It is just the way things are done.

With media outlets mostly hand in glove with the government and those outside the closed cells largely ignored (read Private Eye for four issues and then wonder why nothing is done against the corrupt officials and procedures exposed, as evidenced in the Thorpe programme), there are few checks as such.

The various estates are either part of the establishment or beholden to it.

We do have the BBC, the ultra left-wing outlet that continuously ignores its requirement to be fair to all, at least according to the PH massive. However, Murdoch attacks it and has its constraint as part of its requirement for its outlets to support a particular party and various governments are only too happily to oblige, but for their own reasons. They too are beholden to the government for everything, including their bloke in charge.

In my early years in the police I saw similar conspiracies in actions. Corrupt officers would produce a defendant at court. They would have corrupt lawyers defending them and they would be before corrupt magistrates and stipendiaries.

The terrible thing about the days of Challenor is that he was the only one with a reason for his behaviour. Everyone else in the system, including judges, were complicit but did nothing. The old joke about a stipe telling him: 'I do not wish to see this half brick yet again.' was always said in the expectation of a supporting laugh.

The systems change, the methods change, but those at the top will still protect themselves.

We see Vaz produced time and again to pontificate on actions of people who have not done their job properly yet a quick Wiki shows exactly what type of person he is. The old comments about: would you want your daughter to marry him, is modern nowadays as it has nothing to do with racialism. It is about conduct and character.

May said that the police should be concerned with regard to their approval rating. The irony is tragic.

I have no tinfoil hat but I know to a limited extent what goes on and I know that I don't know 1% of it all.

[Derek Smith]

rovermorris999 said:

That's very depressing Derek.

I've been ill. I haven't eaten in 3 days. Whilst having my head stuck in the toilet bowl I hurt my back, pulling a muscle, retching with nothing more to come. So you can appreciate that I'm more than a little tetchy and the milk of human kindness is strangely absent. Not that I could stomach milk of any sort, kind or not.

However, what I posted is true. Those with power and authority will use it to protect themselves and their own. As you say, it is depressing. My wife is keeping sharp implements in locked drawers.

I doubt we've moved on with regards to corruption at the top in any way. If you go back a few years to the days of the Profumo affair we find a man who resigned about as early as anyone wanted him to. Despite his conduct he was a man on honour. Indeed, his subsequent behaviour was quite remarkable and admirable. So let us compare that to our more recent MPs and other officials whose behaviour after being exposed has proved lamentable.

Even when they have been caught with their hands in the till so to speak, obstructed parliamentary enquiries and lied, they return, like a bad back, to inflict pain and obstruct work.

When you are feeling a bit negative, the fact that they pose, pontificate, patronise and preen makes it so much worse. They know that as a group they have little to be proud of. Graft is the norm. There are those that (appear to be at least) above it, but they remain backbenchers, in the same way honest PCs were blocked from being in CID at one time.

[Derek Smith]

BillPeart said:

What gets me, and as an ex police officer you might be able to cast some light on this, Derek, is how politicians, senior police officers and, even, security services, have the wherewithal - let alone the motivation and mal-morals - to be able to lean on investigators, lower ranks, the press et al, to the point that enquiries get stopped or squashed. How the hell do they manage that?

Those in authority have power and we all know what power does to you.

I can't comment on any specific case apart from the one I was involved in, and even in that case, I only just made it to the periphery. However, after 10 years in a force that was corrupt from top to bottom, with senior officers, almost at the top, taking bungs off east end organised gangs, then the MO becomes clear.

It is just a case of people being afraid to put their heads above the parapet.

Then, as now, there is an elite at the top. Those with similar ideas, interests, desires and tastes clump together and their desires take precedence.

Those in the security services are told day after day that the end of the western way of life is under threat and only they, and they other services, can stop it being destroyed by [put any one or more of the currently fashionable threats in here]. So when Smith and his high level cohorts were under threat it is easy enough to believe that, with the PIRA threat being so very real and a civil war continuing in the UK, with support from a major ally, any attack on the government would have disastrous consequences. So shutting down the enquiry, and - as my experience would suggest - shutting up those who know what they are on about and are influential - is not only seen as essential but as patriotic.

Further, as we know, the desire to abuse pre-pubescent children is not restricted to chavs. If, for instance, a high ranking police officer indulges his offensive behaviour in company with, for instance, a judge, both are compromised. Further, in those days judges came from the same stock and went to the same schools and fraternised. The situation changed a bit a few years ago but, from what I can see, has reverted. So they shared one-another's secrets.

Newspapers were run in those days by individuals who were establishment figures and would see themselves as the friends of the high and mighty. So reports of such behaviour might not reach the press and if they did, they would soon be sidelined.

So a file appears on the desk of a senior officer who wants to go further. Even in those days certain files had to go before the 'DPP', an office in fact, rather similar to the CPS in some ways. A junior lawyer who wants to go further is informed that the file should be binned. The chap can go against the advice, knowing full well that it would then go higher and be binned there, and the only result would be his career in tatters, or bin it himself, despite knowing full well that the rules stated it should be proceeded with.

He'd have no evidence of corruption. So he bins is. If his backbone is later more apparent, a quick reminder that there is a, or probably more than one, skeleton in his cupboard, and all is smiles.

The norm was for senior officers to be 'assisted' into position by a patron. So we got grey porridge. Now it appears that there were other qualifications for upper rank for some.

There is no logical justification for believing that similar circumstances do not exist now.

The was a major enquiring into corruption in the City. It went into multi millions. In value it was the biggest ever discovered. After a number of underlings were hit, the plug was pulled as the enquiry was 'too costly'.

[Derek Smith]

We need a foreigner. Someone well respected abroad with no UK connections.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

You are right. I don't know any, nor anyone that does know any. Even if we did, we couldn't be sure of their incorruptibility. Surely there must be a nationally known and respected figure with no baggage. Or is it to be a case of if you can't get rid of the skeleton in your cupboard, you'd better teach it to dance.

I don't know any either, and that is part of the point. Are we so limited as to people who are unimpeachable?

Anyone in this country who is not part of the establishment or who has not fraternised with them is probably unqualified for the role.

Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 14th December 20:31

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

Derek, do you mean unqualified because of lack of legal training?

Indeed I do. Thanks for correcting that for me.

Bit tired at the moment.

[Derek Smith]

Result of a bit of surfing:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-revi...

How the establishment get away with it. If that's a picture of the author, he's about 12.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 18th December 09:49

[Derek Smith]

On occasion I worked alongside a chap who collected images of children being abused. I had no idea of his tastes.

I would assume that many people on these forums have done the same. They don't publicise their offending.

However, in the 70s, I used to work alongside corrupt police officers. They were, at that time, all but untouchable. Everyone knew whom the majority were, it didn't take genius to work it out - I mean, I did.

I do wonder if it was just accepted. I can't believe that no one knew that there were offenders and just turned a blind eye.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

You might say, if you were uncharitable, that the latest investigation by the Met, overseen and managed by the senior body, will take precedence and those giving evidence to it just might be rendered unavailable for interview elsewhere while the matter is being rigorously pursued by the police. Sounds familiar and about par for the course. It is a sorry affair when previously highly respected organisations (by most of us) are brought into disrepute by a gang of perverts and molesters. What the hell have we come to.

We have paedophiles in the churches, in the forces, in the government, in the civil service, the law and in the police. You have them sitting nest to you at work, and you have them as your bosses.

I find it difficult to believe how widespread and complex the sexual exploitation of children was. And let us admit it, is.

It is bewildering. I was in the police for 30 years and had no idea.

I knew that those at the top would give into pressure and that amongst MPs and those in power there were a number of those who were attracted to the prepubescent but the extent of it is bewildering.

It has opened my eyes.

We must now work to bring protection for children knowing that those who have authority and responsibility are as likely to be sexually corrupt as the person they are dealing with.

It really is quite shocking. Fundamentally so.

If you see a child who has been abused, or just read a file, you will feel anger and despair. These kids have their lives ruined. All the way through there are those who could have made a difference, have changed the circumstances, given the kid a chance. Yet these people didn't.

We can see in the churches the way the hierarchy defends its interests and ignores the needs of the victims.

The coalition has brought in a law which makes it a criminal offence for police officers to 'blow the whistle', the idea being that they can got to senior officers with the information knowing full well that they will do something about it. We will have laws which restrict the chances of the press exposing those in authority. We have sat back and allowed these changes.

I've always assumed it was those at the top exercising their power to indulge their perverted tastes but it is, it seems, a significant organisation.

In the 70s and early 80s there was endemic corruption in the Mets and City police. This was at the coal face. We now see that those at the top are just as corrupt, in fact more so.

[Derek Smith]

We had a number of victims give talks to police when I was in training. I would normally sit in. For the victim of child abuse I felt that to go in just to sit at the back was rubbernecking. I asked one, as he was going in, if it was all right and he said he would be upset if I changed my normal procedure just for him.

What he said was both heart-rending and inspiring. His life had been changed - modified was the word he used and was happy with - by abuse from a foster parent but after a very difficult period - drug abuse, self harm and all the other fall out from the lack of self respect that often occurs, he was able to change with the help of another victim.

He now said that he did not hate his father, nor his mother for turning a blind eye. He was relaxed about it, answering questions willingly and openly. But that was what he did day after day, it was his life. He was doing what the chap who rescued him was/had been doing and the abuse had limited his life.

It was really very sad. Here was a bloke who had, by all definitions, got over it, and yet his foster father was still running his life.

That was the only such chat I went to.

As for how we change it, I have no idea and there is a feeling of inevitability that it will continue, with the powerful getting their own way again. The attack of police whistle blowers, not being able to chat to the press, and the papers about to be hamstrung all seems to point to self protection of those in authority.

And more on Smith:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997971/Cy...

The suggestion - often mine - that MI5/SB were involved in the cover-up seems to be supported by this article.

There have been delays and further delays in investigations. I have no doubt in my mind that this is due to those in the frame. Other major inquiries have cleverly covered up wrong doing by those in power many times, cleverly deflecting blame and you get the feeling that the same will happen this time.

The press and governments are too close. It is bad enough that we will probably never know much about it, but what is worse, much worse, is that abuse will continue and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

[Derek Smith]

Foppo said:

How can a police officer be constrained from reporting a crime to do with children? I know in the real world people don't want to loose their pensions or their jobs.

But please some officers who knew about all of this show some courage.

Why did you become a police officer in the first place.?

There were those who, as you put it, showed courage. There was a major enquiry into the allegations against Smith and others. When officers posted a precis to a number of other officers around the country, the unit was disbanded, the evidence hidden, despite it going to the DPP, and the police were left with nothing to prove what they had seen.

But then they could have gone to the press. That is those officers who did not go to the press could have gone to the press. The press could have printed the allegations. Many feel lawyers and judges were also involved in child abuse. Let's face it, it is highly unlikely none were.

One paper had to pay damages and costs running into six figures. Laws protect those at the top.

And in any case, look at who was in charge of many of the papers. Were they mates of those in authority?

If Smith was being protected by MI5 and SB, what could the individual officer do?

I tried to get in touch with the Rochdale enquiry team once and was told that they were uncontactable after being disbanded. I left my home number and someone who said they had been in the unit contacted me at home, not giving a name. Officers were frightened.

MI5 - they are powerful. They, many feel, protected the MPs and other powerful people. Would you have tried to face them down knowing that the papers would not back you up, apart from the Eye, and that was, like now, ignored.

The MPs like Thorpe could do what they wanted. The police were against a rock and a hard, very hard, MI5.