1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Lord David Steele "should be kicked out of the House of Lords"

Discussion in 'Personal' started by BigFrankEM, Feb 25, 2020.

  1. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    That is what a recent article in the Guardian claims to be the opinion of victims of the infamous child abuser Liberal MP & peer Cyril Smith in view of the corruscating condemnation of David's arrogant lack of repentence for his own role in covering for Smith's vile crimes as detailed in a report on the Westminster connection by the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published today.

    How times change.

    Some of us are old enough to remember when young David along, to be fair, with his powerful but hidden sponsor Roy Jenkins, was to the forefront in consolidating the UK's position post Beatles at the vanguard of civilised values (sic)

    Yet his political career now ends with him viewed as only a very very very very small rung above the groomers and abusers who have had such a field day since then.

    In the ultimitate of British political gutters; unfit even to grace the illustrious and ever-so-coveted benches of the House of Lords !

    What mustJudy think?

    O tempora, o mores.

    ROSIEGIRL Senior commenter

    If you knew that a colleague was abusing children what would you do?
  3. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    "Recommend that they join me in the HoL"

  4. Morninglover

    Morninglover Lead commenter

    He's quit both the Lib Dems & the House of Lords.
  5. gainly

    gainly Lead commenter

  6. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    The decent thing would have been to pass what he knew about Smith over the the police, so a prosecution might take place.
  7. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    He's resigned.

    Doesn't excuse him though.
    ms honey, Scintillant and emerald52 like this.
  8. stopwatch

    stopwatch Lead commenter

  9. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter


    Quite the contrary

    He even claims to have been made a fall guy.
    emerald52 likes this.
  10. Morninglover

    Morninglover Lead commenter

    Your thread asked for his to be kicked out of the House of Lords. He jumped before he could be pushed - so you should be pleased!
  11. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    If he knew anything and didn't reveal it then he really should be ashamed of himself.
    ms honey likes this.
  12. Morninglover

    Morninglover Lead commenter

    Yes, indeed.
  13. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    I don't think he knew any more than the Lancashire Police, who had already investigated Cyril Smith and decided to take no action. Steel knew this and so saw no reason to ask the police to investigate again. That's my understanding. If he had new information that would be different, but I don't think anyone is saying that he did. I think the argument is that Steel should have assessed if Smith was still a risk to children, although I don't know how he could have done that without access to further information.
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2020
    border_walker and Kandahar like this.
  14. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    Concentrating on this one isolated point, though it is by no means the whole issue:

    Smith confessed to Steele that he had in the past been on the habit of abusing children !

    Steele informed the inquiry that it had not even crossed his mind then, or subsequently, to wonder whether Cyril was still active as a child abuser.

    This insouciant Nelson-eye moral blindness from one of the 2 main sponsors of the so-called "civilised society.'
  15. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Steel (there is no final e) said he knew that this had taken place before Cyril Smith had become an MP and that the police had investigated and that the police had decided not to prosecute.

    Yes, that is something that is unacceptable today, although 40 years ago it would not have been the issue it is now.
  16. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    i) "police decided not to prosecute"

    This egregious police error is the kernel of the report in question. Lord Steel(*) cannot rely on the argument "I was no worse than the old Bill" in such circumstances.

    ii) "It was different 40 years ago"

    Child abuse was also child abuse then, as I for one clearly recall.

    (*) Mea culpa
  17. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    I eternally wonder why it was thought so less damaging, perverted and criminal than it is now though.
  18. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    I don't think it was. When I said it was different 40 years ago, what I meant was that all David Steel had to go on back then was the knowledge that Cyril Smith had been investigated many years earlier by the police, who decided that there was no case to prosecute. It was only after many new allegations were made following Smith's death in 2010 that it became apparent that Snith was probably a serial sex offender. Diffiicult to know what Steel was expected to do, considering that Smith was by then dead.
  19. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    Mu emphasis above

    The issue of Smith's guilt appears less than clear to some people; at least until 2 days ago when that post was made.

    Shades of the Westminster syndrome: "he's one of us" I ask myself.

    Whereas, in the article below relating to Steel's evidence before the Abuse Inquiry, in the para following the date 1969, Steel admits that he believed Smith was guilty of child abuse in '79.


    But made no attempt to progress the matter, either then or subsequently.
  20. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Steel said that in 1979 he believed the allegations about Smith's activities in 1969 (Smith had confirmed that they were true, after all!) but these were the bottom-spanking allegations investigated by the police in 1969 and Steel knew that the police had decided to take no action.

    His argument is that the activities happened before Smith became an MP and had already been investigated and not deemed worthy of prosecution. These days I think we might be more aware of protection issues and ... done what? Hired a private detective to follow Cyril Smith around?
    Brunel likes this.

Share This Page