If David Steel knew about Cyril Smith’s child abuse then he is an accessory and should be prosecuted

Cyril Smith and David Steel: The paedophile and his accessory?

David Steel’s evidence to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse suggests that he should not just be suspended from the Liberal Democrats, but should be arrested and tried as an accessory.

He told the inquiry Smith admitted committing the crimes to him in 1979. Lord Steel would have to take joint responsibility for any further crimes, as he had been in a position to prevent them from happening and did nothing.

Lord Steel said he asked Smith in 1979 about claims he abused boys at a Rochdale hostel in the 1960s, and came away from the conversation “assuming” that Smith had committed the offences but claimed it was “nothing to do with me”.

The inquiry heard that the Liberal Party held no formal inquiry into the claims against Smith, which were investigated by the police in 1969 but no prosecution was brought. Lord Steel’s position is that, as the police had investigated, the matter had been concluded.

But he had discussed the matter with Smith in 1979. What of any offences committed after that date – or indeed, between 1969 and then?

He said he had “assumed” that Smith had committed the offences, but took no further action because: “It was before he was an MP, before he was even a member of my party. It had nothing to do with me.”

Lord Steel also recommended Smith for a knighthood in 1988 and said he did not pass on any allegations about the sexual abuse of children because “I was not aware of any such allegations other than the matter referred to…which appeared to have been fully investigated”.

He said it had not occurred to him that children could still have been at risk from Smith – who went on to abuse other boys after the interview, according to victims.

I know people who were sexually abused as children. The harm done to them will remain with them for the rest of their lives.

Anybody who finds themselves in a position to help prevent such abuse has a duty to do whatever they can to end it, no matter what their personal feelings might be.

As Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

Not only did Lord Steel do nothing – he actually recommended Smith for a knighthood, which Margaret Thatcher (herself no stranger to child abusers) approved.

I note that then-Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg responded to reports in 2014 that there had been 144 complaints against Smith and that attempts to prosecute him had been blocked, by saying: “My party, the Liberal Democrats, did not know about these actions.” Clearly, from Lord Steel’s words, that was not true.

As ever, it seems to be the case that those in positions of power and privilege are able to do what they like – to whoever they like – without any fear of legal punishment. As ever, it seems those who are poor and vulnerable have no option other than to endure the attentions of the privileged perverts.

In the United Kingdom; in 2019.

Can we have some proper justice now, please?

6 thoughts on “If David Steel knew about Cyril Smith’s child abuse then he is an accessory and should be prosecuted

  1. Dez

    Requesting proper justice from the Establishments….all parties? “Yer ‘aving a larf”. They all close ranks to protect their so called image from the real people that occupy this country in collusion with their globalist media chums who will literally brush anything negative under the carpet to save their parties favourites backsides. The broken system of knighthoods is scattered with their fallen angles such that knighthoods have become permanently tainted a great disappointment for those genuine real humans who have earnt a title…. not paid for it or for just doing their civil servant jobs beyond the call of duty ie cover up, lie, stitchup, etc etc

  2. Rik

    Cyril Smith . . another pervert who along with Jimmy (pervert) Saville
    has, gotten away with it!!
    David Steel needs to be interrogated by the police ..

  3. Diane Miles

    You seem to be suggesting that hearing a rumour and believing it about a person has the same validity as a trial with evidence given. Should Cliff Richard have been condemned because somebody (?) said he was up to no good? There is a bullying culture growing in this country: a rabbi is being threatened for being in a photo with Jeremy Corbyn, a politician is persecuted for relating an historical truth about Hitler wanting to ship people out of Germany. I am very sorry to see that someone as well respected as you are joining in witchhunts.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Should Cyril Smith be condemned because he said a story in Private Eye was accurate? Yes, I think that’s possible to argue.

  4. Zippi

    Question: David Steel said that he “assumed” that Cyril Smith had committed the offences. What could he, justifiably, have done with an assumption? I know that he thought that it was nothing to do with him and perhaps should have done “something” but what? What evidence did he have? Do we know that? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I have been in a similar situation, whereby my friends and I thought something not right about a member of staff. It was years later, when he was caught in a media sting, that we found out but not even we had thought that. I felt guilty, dirty, even but what could I have done with a hunch? We had no proof, only suspicion.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Cyril Smith told him the story about him in Private Eye was “correct”. That is what Lord Steel said. If so, and if he believed that Smith had committed the offences, then he could reasonably go to the police and say, “I’ve asked him about this matter and I think he committed the offences; please investigate.”

Comments are closed.