Steele and historic child abuse...

[irocfan]

If someone is aware of someone committing acts with children and they don't come forward shouldn't they be investigated? Does that come under aiding and abetting (is there such a think in British law)?

Just curious vis-a-vis Lord steele...

[Milkbuttons]

Yes they should be investigated, how could anyone sleep at night knowing that something like that is going on!

Edited by Milkbuttons on Tuesday 25th February 17:24

[anonymous-user]

Steel appears to be a bit of a scumbag. Regrettably, it is unlikely that he committed any offence that would be prosecutable under the law as it stood in 1979. BTW, this is a well known man and his name is Steel; how hard is it to get that right?

There is, by the way, no such thing as British law. That is because the UK is divided into three distinct jurisdictions.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 25th February 17:50

[Escort3500]

Stripping him of his peerage would be a start...

[anonymous-user]

I add that the old legal concept of "accessory after the fact" is unlikely to assist, as that applies to someone who harbours, protects, or assists a person who has committed an offence. Not reporting on a suspicion, even a strong one, would probably not count as protecting.

Aiding and abetting has no application here. Steel was not present at the commission of the offence, and was not complicit before it.

[bitchstewie]

I read that Smith apparently told Steel he (Smith) had molested young boys.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51630520

Assuming that it did happen (the confession) at what point is not acting on that information an offence?

[anonymous-user]

Steel's evidence does not go as far as that, AFAIK. Steel accepts that he believed the allegations against Smith to be true (which they were, as far as we can now tell). It is not clear that Smith confessed to Steel.

[anonymous-user]

Accessory after the fact remains a somewhat obscure statutory offence, codified in 1861, but based on the common law as explained by William Blackstone in the eighteeenth century:-

"An accessory after the fact may be, where a person, knowing a felony to have been committed, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon. Therefore, to make an accessory ex post facto, it is in the first place requisite that he knows of the felony committed.
In the next place, he must receive, relieve, comfort, or assist him. And, generally, any assistance whatever given to a felon, to hinder his being apprehended, tried, or suffering punishment, makes the assistor an accessory. As furnishing him with a horse to escape his pursuers, money or victuals to support him, a house or other shelter to conceal him, or open force and violence to rescue or protect him."

[williamp]

Odfly, or worryingly even if Steele did go to thd police back then, I doubt they would have done anything. It needed Jimmy Saville and Rotherham to forceca change in opinion

[anonymous-user]

That might be right, but Steel is still a scumbag.

BTW: -

1. David Steel. Not Steele.

2. Jimmy Savile. Not Saville. Maybe read a newspaper or look at a website every now and then?

[bitchstewie]

Breadvan72 said:

Steel's evidence does not go as far as that, AFAIK. Steel accepts that he believed the allegations against Smith to be true (which they were, as far as we can now tell). It is not clear that Smith confessed to Steel.

Thank you.

Utterly scummy behaviour taken at face value

[irocfan]

Breadvan72 said:

That might be right, but Steel is still a scumbag.

BTW: -

1. David Steel. Not Steele.

2. Jimmy Savile. Not Saville. Maybe read a newspaper or look at a website every now and then?

maybe get of your high-horse wonce in a wile and except that peeple arent as well edumacated as yor lerned self. Seriously people have make a typo or jotted something down quickly and you react like that? Not a good look TBH

[williamp]

No no, he's right. We should give these two the respect they deserve...

But I stand by my point. Had Steel gone to the Police about this at the time, would society/police done anything?? No. And as a Police officer at the time, I expect he knows this. Not having a go:different times, thankfully

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

maybe get of your high-horse wonce in a wile and except that peeple arent as well edumacated as yor lerned self. Seriously people have make a typo or jotted something down quickly and you react like that? Not a good look TBH

This has nothing to do with education, but a lot to do with basic attention span. The names of these two creeps are splashed all over the media, and both have been well known figures for decades.

[hidetheelephants]

I may be mis-remembering but from Private Eye's coverage of this he claimed that as Smith had been questioned by police and then NFA'd it wasn't necessary for him to do anything; the subtext presumably being that Smith had intimidated Steel into not making it a party disciplinary matter.

[Drawweight]

My wife worked in child services in that very city.

It was well known amongst officials that you never left Smith alone with young boys long before anything came to the public notice.

It was a pity that nothing was ever done at the time.

[Derek Smith]

williamp said:

No no, he's right. We should give these two the respect they deserve...

But I stand by my point. Had Steel gone to the Police about this at the time, would society/police done anything?? No. And as a Police officer at the time, I expect he knows this. Not having a go:different times, thankfully

I'm not sure that is so. I'm not one for tin hats but Smith was protected by those in authority. If one of them, and at that time Steel was pretty big, had reported what he knew then the investigations that were enquiring into Smith and his accomplice might not have been closed and the unit disbanded. He didn't and they were.

The reports in the Eye were such that they alone should have been enough. But pressure was brought on the force. Not only that, a précis of what the investigation team had found was sent to specialist officers in other forces, and they too, and in one case I know of, the whole of the teaching staff, were threatened with dismissal.

Despite the forces having to follow accepted procedure for dismissal, given the pressure that could be brought to bear, I doubt if proper procedures would have been followed.

The case papers were ‘lost’ after the team sent them to the CPS. They denied all knowledge and suggested that they were headed off at the pass by senior police officers, so who knows? According to one of the investigation team, they knew what they were sitting on so handed them to the CPS by hand. Who knows?

That’s not to exonerate senior police officers because they were complicit in the cover-up.

Whatever, Smith wasn't punished for his offences, and those that supported him, either by action or inaction, should be exposed.