egafd.com

Cyril Smith is the latest known figure that the media have decided to go on and on about following allegations he was a kiddy-fiddler. Obviously things like this deserve coverage and need investigating but the amount of coverage Jimmy Saville got and the amount of coverage this will inevitably get will leave many scratching their heads as to why it is/was dominating the news this much. Most people under 30 or 35 in Britain hadn't heard of Jimmy Saville until the media started the huge coverage of his alleged activities. Even less people would have heard of Cyril Smith yet we are about to have endless news coverage of him. Do people think the amount of coverage the Saville issue got, and this is about to get, is too much? I do. Over the coming months it will be Cyril Smith overload in the media.

You're always an evil paedophile when your dead and can't answer back. When you're alive it seems you're as innocent as fuck.

Cyril Smith won't get as much coverage as Savile though. C Smith has been long gone.

No way is Cyril Smith a new suspect.

l remember the odd story in Private Eye from the late 1980's that mentioned him in relation to one or more boys homes in Rochdale, but as l understand it there were stories circulating about him from the mid 1970's.

Just like Jimmy Saville he was too much of a celebrity for the police to do anything about, and without a doubt he was backed up by the Liberal Party leadership, not so much that they accepted his predilecations just that did not wont bad publicity for the party.

And why this should dominate the news? Once again it has been found that the Police have totally let down vunerable children/people, that in itself is enough for us to be concerned.

Yes, l know it was 30/40 years ago, but what makes us so sure that the police are good enough to take on a case like this today?

cockneygeezer2009 wrote:

> You're always an evil paedophile when your dead and can't
> answer back. When you're alive it seems you're as innocent as
> fuck.
>
> Cyril Smith won't get as much coverage as Savile though. C
> Smith has been long gone.
>
As Welkram says the accusations about Cyril Smith were known and first published nationally in Private Eye in 1979, They waited for the writ but none there came...

Private Eye have published so many stories relating to Cyril Smith and his predilection for young, vulnerable boys over the years (without ever being sued by Smith) that it's surprising that it's only now being properly investigated. I imagine (Lord) David Steele must be squirming... as leader of the party at the time he would have been more than well aware of the accusations levelled against Smith, yet supported Smith's knighthood.

Interestingly enough, I recently read somewhere that Cyril Smith was a member of an exclusive "underground" sex club in London where all sorts of unsavoury behaviour went on (under-aged sex being the main activity). It seems that, apart from Jimmy Saville who was also a regular at the club, members included other senior politicians (including a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer), senior police officers, senior judges, a newspaper proprietor, the editor of another broadsheet and many other "well respected and senior members of the community" If true, it would explain why all complaints hit a buffer and nothing was ever done during his life time to bring him to book.

This could be interesting.

David Steel didn't support a knighthood for Cyril Smith he recommended it. Interesting stories about David Steel in old issues of Scallywag ? if you can get your hands on copies.

David Lloyd George, Jeremy Thorpe, Paddy Ashdown, Mark Oaten ? some rum coves in the Liberal Party...

I'm wondering how long it will be before another deceased known name starts to get written about in the media for past sexual abuse. As you say they can't sue so the press can say what it likes. I hope Cyril Smith doesn't get as much coverage as Jimmy Saville, if he did millions of people would spend the first few weeks saying "who's he?", just like they did with Saville.

Makes you wonder why nothing was done when allegations were made in the media years ago, I don't think it was because Cyril Smith was a senior figure with friends in high places. All sorts of things were said about Jeremy Thorpe the Liberal leader and that harmed his name as far as I'm aware.

As I said in my comment to EssexLad I don't think it was because he was a big name therefore it seemed he was untouchable. There were lots of allegations made about the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe and that harmed his standing as far as I'm aware. From memory, it was alleged Jeremy Thorpe shot a dog dead because it wouldn't stop barking while he was in bed with a male friend and they were getting down to it. Thorpe was apparently so nervous the dog would bring attention to what was going on in the house that he climbed out of bed, got dressed, grabbed a shot gun, went outside, and killed the mut. He then went back in the house, disrobed, and jumped under the duvet with the man again. He was also giving money on a weekly basis, for years, to a male friend and when this came out he said he was helping the guy out because he was broke. It was alleged in the press that Thorpe was actually being blackmailed and was giving hush-money to the guy. The press reported all of this as far as I recall. Cyril Smith perhaps getting a lot less coverage than he should have got could have been down to him being in some sort of masonic organisation, and numerous journalists, Judges, senior Police figures and so on, were involved too. I am scraping the barrel here, I doubt it was that. Why Cyril Smith was NOT given more coverage for what he allegedly did and why it didn't harm his career is anyone's guess.

I mentioned in my comment just now to welkram that Cyril Smith could have been in some sort of masonic organisation, which involved senior figures such as journalists, Judges, senior Police figures and so on. That could have explained the fact there was not as much coverage or investigation into Cyril Smith's alleged activities than there otherwise might have been. I say in my last comment it is doubtful that be the case. Having read you comment, and it seems you know about this, there's a possibility it could have been that. However a lot of senior establishment figures were in masonic type organisations years ago, some did dodgy things, other did not, yet you still had a lot of coverage about the bad deeds of the individual. Jeremy Thorpe the Liberal leader is one example and I talk about him in the comment to welkram above.