Cyril Smith - the revellations

Author
Discussion

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
The photo on the Daily Mail website reminds me of 'Are you ever concerned that people might find you out?':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBhTIoIXoTI

Though that may fit the Rev. Flowers formerly of the Co-op better?
I've just picked up today's MoS. Seems the Rev. Flowers of the Co-op was on the Council at Rochdale. Page 10 says 'This week: Flowers will receive letter from QC Andrew Warnock heading official cover-up inquiry.'

Page 13 has Danczuk saying he may name the other prominent politician using parliamentary privilege.





The Hypno-Toad

12,249 posts

204 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
scratchchin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608675/Sh...

If I was the Rev. Flowers I'd be staying away from the local woods and making damn sure I wasn't ever seen carrying a large amount of a prescription drug or a blunt knife used for whittling.

This could be about to get very interesting....


FwdConvert

305 posts

121 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
carinaman said:
The photo on the Daily Mail website reminds me of 'Are you ever concerned that people might find you out?':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBhTIoIXoTI

Though that may fit the Rev. Flowers formerly of the Co-op better?
I've just picked up today's MoS. Seems the Rev. Flowers of the Co-op was on the Council at Rochdale. Page 10 says 'This week: Flowers will receive letter from QC Andrew Warnock heading official cover-up inquiry.'

Page 13 has Danczuk saying he may name the other prominent politician using parliamentary privilege.
Hope he does, but I bet many of us know who it is (rumoured to be) already.

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,512 posts

247 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
Page 13 has Danczuk saying he may name the other prominent politician using parliamentary privilege.
I'm in two minds about this.

Parliamentary privilege was one of the great leaps forward this country made in establishing government. It is there as a protection for MPs. Deliberately mentioning a name against whom evidence is not available sufficient for a prosecution is underhanded, bullying if you will. I could understand, and support it, in the case of the farcical super duper injunctions, but using it merely to escape prosecution of libel seems wrong.

Yet . . .

The libel laws and courts of this country are part of the reason these people got away with their terrible actions, and people are still getting away with their actions. The threat of expensive costs is being used as a weapon of control of the press in Leveson.

If powerful people are protected by institutions then this might well be the only way of breaking a conspiracy, if conspiracy there be of course.

FwdConvert

305 posts

121 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
carinaman said:
Page 13 has Danczuk saying he may name the other prominent politician using parliamentary privilege.
I'm in two minds about this.

Parliamentary privilege was one of the great leaps forward this country made in establishing government. It is there as a protection for MPs. Deliberately mentioning a name against whom evidence is not available sufficient for a prosecution is underhanded, bullying if you will. I could understand, and support it, in the case of the farcical super duper injunctions, but using it merely to escape prosecution of libel seems wrong.

Yet . . .

The libel laws and courts of this country are part of the reason these people got away with their terrible actions, and people are still getting away with their actions. The threat of expensive costs is being used as a weapon of control of the press in Leveson.

If powerful people are protected by institutions then this might well be the only way of breaking a conspiracy, if conspiracy there be of course.
Though this person (if it is the politician I think it will be) hasn't been prosecuted, isn't there enough against him to provide reasonable cause for an arrest or investigation? In other words, is there no evidence or is he another who has been protected by..?

Do you recall the very clear and pointed Private Eye cover of him some while back - the one with the police officer asking if he'd accompany him to the station - to be told that, no, he was too old (for politician's taste)?

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,512 posts

247 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
FwdConvert said:
Though this person (if it is the politician I think it will be) hasn't been prosecuted, isn't there enough against him to provide reasonable cause for an arrest or investigation? In other words, is there no evidence or is he another who has been protected by..?

Do you recall the very clear and pointed Private Eye cover of him some while back - the one with the police officer asking if he'd accompany him to the station - to be told that, no, he was too old (for politician's taste)?
Yeah, take your point. If there is a conspiracy or pressure has been exerted in order to protect the person - or more likely to protect the co-conspirators - then, if the only option is to use Parliamentary privilege then so be it. I'm not sure this is the case yet.

If there is sufficient for an investigation against the person then, if it hasn't happened then pressure has to be exerted by those who can.


V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
The reports referred to in the Flail article should be sufficient to haul everyone in for questioning. Difficult to believe that the reports weren't leaked to the media/plod as soon as completed.

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
You'd think, but look at the William Goad case in Plymouth. I'm not sure if that's been put to bed again yet. The police officer that went to the BBC Panorama programme about it in 2006?, former DC Shirley Thompson, is still saying there should be a Public Inquiry. The Judge that jailed him said he doubted he worked alone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24090517

It would seem someone is being protected there too. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a link. Supposedly Goad was involved with taking boys from Devon and Cornwall up to Manchester and Lancashire. How many massive paedophile groups could you have had involving so many prominent people without there being any 'bleed over' between the two?

The way evidence was 'lost' and officers were told to leave it sounds very much like what was said to Derek Smith, the OP, when he heard of Cyril Smith.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 21st April 12:03

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
The threat of exposure under parliamentary privilege rather seems an attempt to provoke an involuntary reaction of resignation by the suspect. Would have thought the whisper of an intended bombshell in the right ear might not have achieved the fait accompli to be expected of it all coming out, due to a panic to cover up the cover up of the cover up.

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
You'd think some may do away with themselves. One of the group of paedophiles operating with William Goad hung himself in France and left a note saying 'Ha, ha, ha, ha', which I took to be that he'd got away with his crimes and got to evade prosecution and jail.

This chap that was on Today on R4 on Thursday, seeming to bang the David Cameron Evangelical drum, did much the same with using parliamentary privilege to name someone involved in historic sex abuse cases:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-2059261...

I think Mr Genge's Lawyer complained after that Gary Streeter MP had misused parlimentary privilege.


I think it's hypocritical that we have our elected representatives U-turning on the Snooper's Charter with 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear', while using their office and the establishment that we pay for via our taxes is used to keep their misdemeanours private and away from public gaze and scrutiny. No different from Paedophile Priests or bent Coppers is it?

FwdConvert

305 posts

121 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
The threat of exposure under parliamentary privilege rather seems an attempt to provoke an involuntary reaction of resignation by the suspect. Would have thought the whisper of an intended bombshell in the right ear might not have achieved the fait accompli to be expected of it all coming out, due to a panic to cover up the cover up of the cover up.
I doubt whether this will lead to a response, but I have written to the name likely to be revealed (and mentioned umpteen times previously in connection with events at the Elm Guest House), noting that his name is currently featured widely in internet references to (and, previously, newspaper reports about) activities there and asking if he might be so kind as to share any information he has and to confirm whether he attended any event at that place - to help settle the gossip and intrigue that is always unsettling and unhelpful in situations like this.

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
FwdConvert said:
I doubt whether this will lead to a response, but I have written to the name likely to be revealed (and mentioned umpteen times previously in connection with events at the Elm Guest House), noting that his name is currently featured widely in internet references to (and, previously, newspaper reports about) activities there and asking if he might be so kind as to share any information he has and to confirm whether he attended any event at that place - to help settle the gossip and intrigue that is always unsettling and unhelpful in situations like this.
Well, good luck with that. If there is one thing that rankles, and there are so many, above their innate dishonesty it is the sniffy overwhelming hubris they have for the proles. I include those who have not committed these disgusting acts, however eminent, but connived in covering it all up. They share just as much guilt. I do think the threat of disclosure in the house will bring about decisive action before the deed is done, it remains to be seen just what that action might be.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
You'd think, but look at the William Goad case in Plymouth. I'm not sure if that's been put to bed again yet. The police officer that went to the BBC Panorama programme about it in 2006?, former DC Shirley Thompson, is still saying there should be a Public Inquiry. The Judge that jailed him said he doubted he worked alone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24090517

It would seem someone is being protected there too. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a link. Supposedly Goad was involved with taking boys from Devon and Cornwall up to Manchester and Lancashire. How many massive paedophile groups could you have had involving so many prominent people without there being any 'bleed over' between the two?

The way evidence was 'lost' and officers were told to leave it sounds very much like what was said to Derek Smith, the OP, when he heard of Cyril Smith.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 21st April 12:03
This has a (historical) D notice written all over it.

Respect for the "establishment" is supposed to increase as one ages, but deep mistrust and cynicism prevails.

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Did corrupt Plymouth policeman tip off Britain's worst paedophile William Goad by Carl Eve Plymouth Herald newspaper website 28 February 2014 said:
His arrival at the Task Force office may have been genuine interest in the inquiry and his comments to Mr Wyatt may have come about due to the officers’ “brash, larger than life character”, rather than any dishonesty.
Two mays don't make a right?

Did corrupt Plymouth policeman tip off Britain's worst paedophile William Goad by Carl Eve Plymouth Herald newspaper website 28 February 2014 said:
his comments to Mr Wyatt may have come about due to the officers’ “brash, larger than life character”, rather than any dishonesty.
'Brash, larger than life Character'?

scratchchin

A bit like the late Cyril Smith then?

But then again Cyril Smith, DC Foulden or convicted paedophile William Goad are not around to defend themselves and their reputations are they?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 23 April 16:23

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,512 posts

247 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
'Brash, larger than life Character'?

scratchchin

A bit like the late Cyril Smith then?

But then again Cyril Smith, DC Foulden or convicted paedophile William Goad are around to defend themselves and their reputations are they?
The prevalence of those who get off on child abuse is really quite remarkable. I was told it was second only to car crime - this before immobilisers. For those with a strong constitution and who lack imagination, look up RFI, a somewhat frequent MO. I mean, where does that get exciting? It is bewildering.

I've heard the excuse that it alright for the straights as it is allowed, but then when I wasn't getting any I didn't take women off the street.

On top of that though are those who covered up for them. This has no defence, real or imagined, at all. Surely they must have been as repulsed by the actions as the rest of us. There is no doubt that those in the security side of things, be they MI5 or Special Branch, were involved in the cover up one way or the other. How many join either to protect MPs, judges, senior police officers and those high up in the the City, all of whom have been implicated.

I can understand visits to brothels and such being seen as OK, as long as the women were full partners so to speak. Consenting adults and all that. I felt sorry for Profumo at the time, let alone when I read up on it later. Whilst there were strong suggestions of rape of women deceived as to the purpose of their invite, no one suggested that he knew about this nor participated.

But kids, vulnerable kids, those who have been dealt a rough hand in any case and are, supposedly, being protected by councils.

This is not the case of someone making a mistake or perhaps panicking when in a position of authority that they are unused to. This is a matter of official connivance by those in power.

What are the odds for this being a 10-minutes of fame and then Dacre moving on to something else to frighten the middle classes with? It has happened before of course.

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
What are the odds for this being a 10-minutes of fame and then Dacre moving on to something else to frighten the middle classes with? It has happened before of course.
I don't know. Perhaps society has changed? Perhaps society has had enough of the establishment making it up as they go along?

The letter my MP got back from my Chief Constable makes it up as they go along. Their 'belief' is easily dispelled by looking at three separate documents in their possession. My MP should have just replied 'Yeah, right' rather than forward it on to me. There's at least a week in the difference of the dates between the two letters so I hope that there was some discussion between them about the plausibility of the content of that letter and the chances I'd leave it at that. The 'beliefs' of the Chief Constable insult the truth, insult my intelligence and that of my MP and lies about a decent police officer.

Why have I made it about me, and gone off thread?

The Mail article on Carole Kasir at Elm Guest House, Barnes on Saturday uses the term 'police officers strongly believe'

It's just a reminder of the Chief Constable's 'beliefs' about my beef. If they looked at the facts they wouldn't have to rely on their 'beliefs'.

What a Chief Constable 'believes' is code for 'What I say goes'?

confused

So in an article on Cyril Smith at Elm Guest House, Barnes police officers 'strongly believe' something or some evidence, where as I have a letter from a Chief Constable where their 'beliefs' are used in a sentence that's plain wrong. So I'm now confused about what the 'beliefs' of police officers actually mean, or how much credibility they have.

The 'beliefs' of police officers are like one of your 'insinuendos'?


I've grown cynical with age? Or having dealt with an MP and Chief Constable that has problems dealing with evidence and the truth I've realised that these people that make up the 'establishment' aren't anything special. They're no different from anyone else. They can't respect the truth but I am supposed to respect their position and supposed authority?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 23 April 17:04

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
I've grown cynical with age? Or having dealt with an MP and Chief Constable that has problems dealing with evidence and the truth I've realised that these people that make up the 'establishment' aren't anything special. They're no different from anyone else. They can't respect the truth but I am supposed to respect their position and supposed authority?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 23 April 17:04
Your respect and deference are sadly misplaced. The Chief Constable and MP are part of the way up a very greasy pole with quite a way to go. The only suitable applicants for such elevation and an invitation into the hallowed halls are those that can be relied upon to do whatever they are told and seen to be a safe pair of hands. They are largely the only pre-requisites of high office - the last things wanted are integrity, honour and an independent spirit. That would never do, too many ghosts to keep hidden.

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,512 posts

247 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
carinaman said:
I've grown cynical with age? Or having dealt with an MP and Chief Constable that has problems dealing with evidence and the truth I've realised that these people that make up the 'establishment' aren't anything special. They're no different from anyone else. They can't respect the truth but I am supposed to respect their position and supposed authority?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 23 April 17:04
Your respect and deference are sadly misplaced. The Chief Constable and MP are part of the way up a very greasy pole with quite a way to go. The only suitable applicants for such elevation and an invitation into the hallowed halls are those that can be relied upon to do whatever they are told and seen to be a safe pair of hands. They are largely the only pre-requisites of high office - the last things wanted are integrity, honour and an independent spirit. That would never do, too many ghosts to keep hidden.
I know little about elections of Chief Constables but I've met a few CC's. One was kicked out of office by the home secretary. In other words, party politics has an influence on the selection of CCs.

I know one officer who went for the big job in London. I know him to be honest, straightforward, having experience, and successfully so, outside of the service. His only fault is that if you ask him a question such as, what do you think of . . . he will answer it truthfully. So he didn't get the job.

We now have individual politicians in charge of 'county' forces. That was obviously a good idea. We have Cameron's little me in charge of HMIC (as a reward of thinking up exactly what Cameron thought up many years ago and was rejected. All hail coincidence). This chap even chose to wear a uniform to a police remembrance service. Beyond criticism.

I know of one senior officer who, in an enquiry into the actions of police in another force area, lied, or so many of those involved feel. Many felt that the senior officer's conclusion was just what the government wanted. The truth came out in court showing that this senior officer lied. Yet the punishment awarded? CC in another county.

So we have senior police officers depending on the favour of MPs. We have MPs depending on the favour of media ogres, oops, sorry, moguls. We have big business funding big political parties and having tea a tiffin with cabinet ministers and advisors to the government. We have government influence on the legal system.

Into this mix put a group of like-minded criminals of the grossest kind.

Of course there are corrupt judges, CCs, MPs, big business types, and those with money.

They won't be exposed. They are too important. They have all the big guns. It is like the drugs industry: the minnows get prosecuted.

Cyril Smith, for all his grotesque size, was a minnow. And even he was protected. Now we see that the reason might have been what he knew.

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
They are largely the only pre-requisites of high office - the last things wanted are integrity, honour and an independent spirit. That would never do, too many ghosts to keep hidden.
Derek Smith said:
How many join either to protect MPs, judges, senior police officers and those high up in the the City, all of whom have been implicated.
Keeping inconvenient secrets and playing with the truth isn't on the Oath Constables take is it? It mentions impartiality, honesty and integrity though.

Look at the police recruitment threads in SP&L and 'Ha, ha, they wouldn't accept you' retorts. It's not about brand protection or telling fibs is it?

carinaman

21,217 posts

171 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Cyril Smith, for all his grotesque size, was a minnow. And even he was protected. Now we see that the reason might have been what he knew.
scratchchin

BBC News Website 14 September 2013 said:
Judge Taylor told The Herald newspaper: "On a personal note it would offend against common sense to assume that Goad behaved in this way entirely on his own."

On Friday, an ex-detective claimed the new investigation linked to Goad could uncover "hundreds" more victims.

Ex-detective Shirley Thompson said she believed a paedophile ring linked to Goad could still be active.
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24090517

scratchchin

Thanks Derek.