Archive

Elm Guest House

Spartacus, which during the 1980s was being run as an international paedophile network, has already been linked with Elm Guest House.

The following extract is about an ex-PIE member called Roger Lawrence, who fled to Holland in the early 1980s and joined Spartacus, presumably at around the same time as ex-PIE leader Steven Smith. Lawrence used several aliases, and was arrested in his car at Dover in 1987 with notorious Swiss paedophile and sadist Beat Meier. The car was searched, and along with a large collection of child abuse films and magazines, the police found a three year old boy hidden under a blanket. The boy was called Dimitri Thevenin, and had been kidnapped from his parents’ house in Paris. Unbelievably, Roger Lawrence wasn’t charged and was allowed to go free.

Police found that Meier was wanted for sex offences against children in Switzerland, France, Holland and England. “The English charge sheet revealed he had buggered a young boy in the Huddersfield area”. Beat Meier was sentenced at Leeds Crown Court in January 1988 and received just 18 months, the minimum sentence possible. Judge Raymond Dean QC explained that Meier would be deported to Switzerland as soon as possible, police in Zurich had already taken out a warrant for his arrest for alleged offences against twelve boys and one baby.

Beat Meier’s name also came up during the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium, as did the name of Spartacus boss John D. Stamford.

sp1sp2sp3sp4sp5Extract from ‘Child Pornography’ by Tim Tate (Methuen, 1990)

Below is the latest comment left on this blog by the source of Tom Watson’s PMQ about “a powerful political paedophile ring”. It raises many questions about why The Guardian are still not covering the national scandal of children procured from care homes being abused by rich and poweful paedophiles, while at the same time giving a platform to paedophile activist Tom O’Carroll. When reading this bear in mind that Tom O’Carroll has a conviction for possession of a collection of 50,000 images and films of children as young as 6 being raped and tortured. This was not mentioned in The Guardian’s coverage.

It has just been brought to my attention that Tom O’Carroll has launched a pathetic and infant like attack on the remarkable Liz Davies on his website.

I won’t waste time on responding to that utterly depraved and deluded individual other than to comment that it does say a great deal about our society, laws, judiciary, parliament and policing priorities that individuals like O’Carroll and Napier have spent less than 6 years in prison and Righton no time at all, despite being responsible either directly or indirectly between them for the sexual and emotional abuse of hundreds of children.

In O’Carroll’s case he has a conviction for ” corrupting public morals ” in the 80′s – he’s been doing it every day since so why isn’t he treated as a repeat offender and constantly returned to prison on that charge alone.

o'carroll

Convicted paedophile Tom O’Carroll

Many of your followers like me despair at the almost complete lack of coverage by the main stream media on events since last October. Why are the wonderful Nick Davies and his like so silent given their outspoken and expert views on the subject of organised child abuse in the past ?

With the exception of Exaro, Jon Snow and The Sunday People/Mirror the silence beggars belief.

I feel obliged to share with you my correspondence with Alan Rusbridger on the matter and let your followers come to their own conclusions

On January 3rd Jon Henley wrote an article in the Guardian entitled ” Paedophilia : bringing dark desires to light

I wrote to the Editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, the following :-

I was a Guardian reader for over 40 years until you made the decision to publish an article described by Tom O’Carroll on his website as ” the first I have ever seen in a mainstream media outlet giving significant coverage to research suggesting that paedophilia is not intrinsically harmful.That was superb, confirming my long held view that Alan Rusbridger is the best ever editor of the world’s greatest English – language newspaper. ”

O’Carroll goes in to great detail on his website about the actual process by which you and Jon Henley made contact with him – what a disgrace you are, allowing this man to view it as a great triumph for him because that is exactly how I viewed it despite your pathetic attempt to justify publishing the article and Henley’s response to Tom Watson MP. ( see Tom Watson’s blog )

Tom O’Carroll is a clever but very dangerous and evil man.

I am as qualified as anyone after 37 years working in child protection and specialising for many years in the investigation of child sexual abuse and the investigation of highly organised rings to know the full extent of the harm done to children and young people by predatory paedophiles like O’Carroll

I am the person who contacted Tom Watson which led to his PMQ on October 24th last year. Before Christmas I agreed to be interviewed by one of your most senior journalists – that now feels like a big mistake given your coverage of O’Carroll’s views and what came across to me as an attempt to find positives in what is one of the most heinious crimes in any society.

( I provided the Guardian with all the information I passed to Tom Watson but not one word of it has appeared in print by them to date )

You should be heading a campaign to close down sites like O’Carroll’s and I strongly believe he should be arrested for the content alone. The almost total lack of coverage by the British media of the events leading up to the setting up of Operation Fernbridge, despite the availability of numerous potential stories that are not sub judice linked to high level historic abuse, is exceptionally worrying.

Paedophiles like Savile, Peter Morrison, Cyril Smith, Sir Peter Hayman were so confident of establishment support they didn’t need to operate in secret they could be as indiscreet as they wished knowing that even if they came to the attention of the Police nothing would come of it and the full weight of the Attorney General and The Director of Public Prosecutions and their underlings would be brought in to play ” in the public interest ”

In what way was ” our ” collective national security protected by the security services when they covered up Cyril Smith’s systematic abuse of children ? ”

The vast majority of the population of this country know that national security when used in these circumstances has absolutely nothing to do with ” our ” collective security but everything to do with being a cover for sustaining the power of the wealthy and privileged.

Your newspaper and you and Jon Henley in particular have very badly let that vast majority down – after Savile we had the opportunity for this to be a watershed moment but the backlash started by the allegedly mistaken identity of a certain individual has gathered momentum and if I had been told that the Guardian would be in the vanguard of that backlash I would never have believed it ”

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger

This is the reply I received from Alan Rusbridger :-

” Thanks for your letter.

I thought Jon Henley wrote an intelligent piece about the mixed academic and medical opinion on paedophilia.

I did not take it to be in any way a defence of child sexual abuse or paedophilia.

I think it desirable, not irresponsible, to write seriously about in-depth research into this disturbing area of life.

I was interested to read about how thinking had changed over time and to hear from a range of experts who deal with offenders

It was,to my mind, a calm and informative piece.

Tom O’Carroll’s speculation as to the genesis of the piece is wide of the mark. We did briefly meet at the Guardian’s readers’ week-end earlier last year. But this had no connection with Jon Henley’s piece.

You will be aware that the Guardian was responsible for exposing the case of mistaken identity to which you refer in your final paragraph. I don’t accept that the paper is in the ” vanguard” of any ” backlash ” after the unmasking of Savile. Our article about Lord McAlpine was of a peice with the intelligent approach that Henley showed in his own article.This is, I accept, a difficult subject and the Gurdian will continue to cover it thoroughly and calmly ”

I contacted Alan Rusbridger a week ago to advise him that I intended to post our respective views on your website
I have not received a response so must assume he has no objection

On 8th November 2012, at the height of the speculation surrounding the BBC’s Newsnight programme which was set to name a paedophile politician, David Cameron was confronted with a list of alleged paedophiles by Philip Schofield. This obviously caught Cameron off guard, and his resulting slip was more revealing than he intended. He said “There is a danger, if we’re not careful, that this can turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay”.

This baffled the majority of viewers, who were in no doubt about the difference between ‘gay people’ who are interested in sex with other adults, and ‘paedophiles’, who are interested in abusing children.

It could be that the ‘gay witch-hunt’ remark revealed the Conservative Party’s strategy for dealing with the hugely damaging revelations that were about to come out following Tom Watson’s PMQ. UK politicians have been well aware of the Elm Guest House paedophile ring ever since the news of the police raid first broke in August 1982, and some were aware of it long before that. They are also aware of other politicians implicated in child abuse scandals which may also come to light if police officers working on Operation Fairbank and Operation Fernbridge are allowed to do their jobs without outside interference. David Cameron will be aware that Elm Guest House was visited by male politicians, and also that it advertised its services as a ‘gay sauna’. This has already been exposed as a lie by the Exaro website and the Sunday People. Elm Guest House was catering for male paedophiles masquerading as gay men, the ‘Spartacus Members Welcome’ sign used in advertising and on the front door of the guest house was a code meaning sex with children was on offer.

The roots of this situation in which paedophiles were hiding under the ‘gay rights’ banner started in the mid-1970s, when the Paedophile Information Exchange, who wanted the age of consent reduced to 4, somehow managed to infiltrate the gay rights movement, who had the wholly reasonable aim  of reducing the age of consent to 16, on equal terms with heterosexuals. On 26th August 1975, the Guardian ran this piece about the Campaign for Homosexual Equality voting to give paedophiles a bigger role in the gay rights movement.

childlo

I’m sure that the Campaign for Homosexual Equality weren’t speaking on behalf of all gay people in accepting paedophiles into the gay rights movement, and I’m also sure most were disgusted by this stance as this letter to the Observer (dated 27.4.80) demonstrates.

old

The gay community were well aware that Spartacus catered for paedophiles, therefore anyone visiting a guest house that advertised’Spartacus Members Welcome’  was highly likely to be a paedophile. If any more proof is needed that Spartacus was a paedophile organisation by the early 1980s, see this Guardian article from 1984, which describes Spartacus as the ‘international paedophile information network’.

My suspicion is that the Conservatives’ strategy for dealing with the fallout from Operation Fernbridge will be to place themselves as the defenders of gay rights, and accuse anyone wanting arrests of Elm Guest House paedophiles of homophobia, as the venue was allegedly a ‘gay sauna’. I sincerely hope this backfires, and judging by the reaction from the public to the ‘gay witch-hunt’ comment, I think it will. This would also explain the Conservative’s promotion of gay marriage, something which has alienated many loyal Tory voters.

There is one person who agrees with David Cameron, and that’s convicted paedophile Warwick Spinks.

G31798aG31798bG31798c

leon2

Leon Brittan became Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary on 11th June 1983. Not long after starting in the role, he came under pressure to ban an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange.

paedophile-information-exchange

The Paedophile Information Exchange, or PIE, campaigned to have the age of consent reduced to 4 years old, which would have effectively legalised paedophilia. PIE published a contacts page in its newsletter with a PO Box number, so paedophiles across the UK and abroad could forge links and trade tips on how to access children, and how to obtain images of child abuse. This was how organised paedophile networks developed in the UK, and helps to explain how paedophiles ended up infiltrating so many schools, children’s homes, and other institutions. By the early 1980s PIE had over 1000 members, including people in prominent and powerful positions in the British Establishment such as diplomats, MPs, aristocrats, intelligence agents, teachers, and child protection experts.

There were a number of big news stories in the early 1980s involving child abuse and missing children. One of these was the ‘Brighton Beasts’ case in August 1983; a 6 year old boy was snatched off the street and sexually assaulted by three men. These cases intensified public opinion about paedophiles, and strengthened the case for an outright ban of PIE and similar organisations.

Leon Brittan, however, did not share the public’s urgency to ban PIE. He outlined a ‘three step approach’ to the issue, which consisted of asking chief constables to report to him, asking the Department of Public Prosecutions to ‘consider’ prosecuting PIE members, and asking parents to keep a close eye on their children.

This provoked an angry reaction both from the public and some sections of the press. The mother of the 6 year old boy who was assaulted in Brighton said Brittan’s policy was “weak and worthless“. Charles Oxley, a headmaster who had infiltrated PIE and provided his information to the police, criticised Brittan’s policy as “apathetic”.The Daily Express, in a comment piece on 2nd September 1983, were most damning of all:

whimper

The policy of asking the DPP to consider prosecutions seems particularly suspect, since the DPP had already decided not to prosecute PIE member Sir Peter Hayman.

Paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman

Paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman

There was even a reported panic among prominent PIE members to cancel their memberships in anticipation of a clampdown. But they needn’t have worried because Mr. Brittan didn’t do anything.

Brittan’s inaction on the issue led a Conservative MP called Geoffrey Dickens to launch a campaign to ban PIE, which attracted huge popular support. Dickens started a petition, and with the help of coverage in the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror, it received over 1 million signatures from members of the British public.

In November 1983, Geoffrey Dickens gave Leon Brittan a ‘massive’ dossier on child abuse, with specific allegations about a link between PIE and Buckingham Palace staff, Foreign Office staff, and the civil service. Brittan did not investigate. It now seems likely that this paedophile ring would have been involved in the child abuse at Elm Guest House, seeing as the visitors to Elm Guest House included senior members of the Royal Household, civil servants, and other prominent Establishment figures. Had Brittan acted on this dossier, a powerful paedophile network could have been smashed, and countless children saved from abuse.

Geoffrey Dickens MP

Geoffrey Dickens MP

In January 1984, Dickens gave Brittan a second dossier alleging child abuse in a children’s home and naming prominent paedophiles including a television executive. In all probability this would have been the BBC, as they allowed Jimmy Savile to get away with abusing children for decades. Again, had Brittan acted on this dossier it would have almost certainly led to Savile and many others, and could have stopped the abuse of hundreds of children. The Home Office now say the dossier is missing, and when Paraic O’Brien recently asked Leon Brittan about it, he said “I do not recollect this and do not have any records that would be of assistance“. How strange that he can’t remember these incredibly important files.

In November 1984 two members of PIE’s executive committee were jailed, for 6 months and 18 months respectively. PIE bowed to public opinion and officially disbanded after the trial, which meant that after stalling for so long, Leon Brittan never had to make a final decision on banning PIE.

It appears that the rights of child abusers were given prominence over the rights of children. I’m sure Mr. Brittan had a reason for his failure to act on child abuse but we may never find out due to his inability to recall events from the 1980s.

The police now publicly accept that young boys were victims of physical and sexual abuse committed by the Rochdale MP

Daily Mirror, 27th November 2012

cyril

Heavyweight MP Sir Cyril Smith was a paedophile who should have been brought to trial, authorities admitted today.

The MP was accused of molesting eight boys in a children’s home in his constituency of Rochdale in the Sixties.

Today the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed they decided three times – in 1970, 1998, and 1999 – not to prosecute the Liberal MP for alleged child abuse after being passed files by the police.

And Greater Manchester police said tonight that if they allegations had been made today they could have taken the case to court.

The force has taken command of the investigation into allegations of sexual abuse made against the late MP.

Officers have been working with colleagues at Lancashire Police to pull together previous investigations carried out into Smith’s activities.

GMP now publicly accepts that young boys were victims of physical and sexual abuse committed by Smith….and they said if he had any accomplices still alive they would pursue the case.

Three separate files regarding Sir Cyril Smith’s actions were passed to first the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service although on each occasion no prosecution was pursued.

GMP Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood said: “This has been a very complex inquiry and I hope people understand why it has taken some time before we were in a position to comment publicly.

“It was very important that both ourselves and Lancashire Police examined all our records very carefully so we could be certain what involvement we had in investigating allegations of sexual and physical abuse made against such a high-profile figure as Smith.

“We are now in a position to say that on three separate occasions, files were passed to first the DPP and then the CPS containing details of abuse committed by Smith, but on each occasion no prosecution was pursued.

“Having now reviewed those decisions, we believe that if the same evidence was presented to the CPS today there would have been a very realistic prospect that Smith would have been charged with a number of indecent assaults, and that the case would have been brought to trial.

“Clearly that is a bold statement to make but it is absolutely important for those victims who were abused by Smith that we publicly acknowledge the suffering they endured.

“Although, Smith cannot be charged or convicted posthumously, from the overwhelming evidence we have it is right and proper we should publicly recognise that young boys were sexually and physically abused and we will offer them as much support as they need should they wish to speak to us.”

An investigation was carried out by Lancashire Police in the late 1960s into Sir Cyril Smith’s actions at the Cambridge House Hostel, a privately-run care home in Rochdale.

The investigating officer presented details of allegations made by eight youths to the DPP, and concluded Smith had indecently assaulted young boys. The DPP recommended no prosecution be pursued.

In 1998 and 1999, Greater Manchester Police passed two separate files to the CPS about Smith’s activities at Cambridge House, but on both occasions no further action was recommended.

Greater Manchester Police also investigated Smith’s involvement with the Knowl View care home in Rochdale, but during this investigation no allegations of sexual abuse were made.

Since the allegations resurfaced in recent weeks, two people have come forward to report historic abuse by Smith, and both are being investigated by Greater Manchester Police.

The Force continues to encourage anyone who was a victim to come forward.

“We need to be both realistic and frank that as Smith is no longer alive, we will not be able to bring any criminal prosecution against him,” ACC Heywood said.

“So there is no confusion whatsoever among the public: if you have a complaint, please report it to Greater Manchester Police. I would stress that if you do want to speak to someone, your information will be treated with the appropriate sensitivity and in total confidence.

“If we receive any evidence that anyone was complicit in the abuse that is still alive today, we will of course investigate that thoroughly.

“Lastly, I want to add my sympathies to anyone who was a victim of sexual or physical abuse by Sir Cyril Smith.

“Having reviewed the full history of this case, I am satisfied that numerous attempts were made to expose his activities but for various reasons this did not happen.

“That will be of little comfort to the people who were brave enough to recall their traumatic experiences, but will never see justice done in court. However, I hope that by publicly acknowledging what happened 50 years ago it will give those people some sense of justice.”

Smith, who died in 2010, was elected to parliament in 1972 and served for 20 years before retiring from politics.

He faced rumours of abuse throughout his career, allegations were published twice, but he never faced any charges.

 

 

Daily Mail, 23 November 2012

For a monthly newspaper published from a cellar by two idealistic young college lecturers, the scoop on the front page of the tiny Rochdale Alternative Press in May 1979 was truly sensational.

Known as RAP, the newspaper, which cost nine pence and was distributed by volunteers in pubs, devoted its entire cover to a story headlined: Strange Case of Smith the Man. Inside, across two pages, the report detailed — in harrowing, graphic terms — the systematic sexual abuse of young boys at a children’s home set up by local dignitaries and funded by the Lancashire town’s Rotary Club. But what really created a stir was the man identified as the chief paedophile: Cyril Smith.

Elected as the local Liberal MP in 1972, a position he held for the next 20 years, the 29-stone 50-year-old was as famous for his weight as his political views.

A regular on the chat-show circuit of the time, he even appeared with Jimmy Savile, the now disgraced BBC disc jockey, on a celebrity edition of the DJ’s TV programme Clunk Click. Smith died from cancer two years ago but remains,  officially, the fattest man ever to be an MP.

Known nationally as ‘Big Cyril’, the unmarried politician had first come to prominence when he bizarrely named his mum as First Lady of Rochdale after he became mayor in 1966, saying he wanted to ‘thank her’ for everything.

He later explained that he was a lifelong bachelor because politics meant ‘he hadn’t had a lot of time for courting women’.

The politician’s predilection for young boys, however, was already the stuff of gossip and jokes in pubs around Rochdale, a close-knit community where secrets did not remain secret for long.

The investigation published in the Rochdale Alternative Press grew out of saloon-bar chat at the Golden Ball, the local pub used for meetings by David Bartlett and John Walker, joint editors of the alternative newspaper, which was printed from a cellar in Bartlett’s home.

With rumours circulating about Smith and young boys for years, and the MP standing for election under the strange banner ‘I am the Man’, the pair had decided to see whether there was credible evidence to back up such allegations. There was.

After interviews with staff and former residents of the children’s home, and senior police officers aware of the allegations, at the end of a six-month investigation the newspaper had discovered nine victims willing to talk, and had four signed affidavits.

With the backing of a prominent lawyer in London, who studied the evidence, the tiny newspaper published its damning conclusions, revealing how the local MP liked to carry out perverted ‘medical examinations’ of young boys in the care home and fondle them inappropriately.

So what was the reaction to this extraordinary allegation? At first, there was mayhem. Other newspapers and television crews descended on Rochdale, buying up copies of the newspaper. Bartlett and Walker were interviewed. Photographs were taken.

But then Smith, a famous, powerful figure, swiftly announced that he was taking out an injunction against RAP and backed up the threat by claiming he was also suing for libel. Private Eye published a follow-up story repeating the allegations — but that was it.

‘It was a gagging action [on Smith’s part] — to prevent anyone else writing about this,’ David Bartlett, now 74 and living in retirement on the Isle of Wight, told me this week.
‘Smith never did sue. He increased his majority at the next election. The whole thing died down and just faded away.’

smith

Jeremy Thorpe & Cyril Smith

Now, more than three decades later, the same claims about Big Cyril are finally being made at the highest level. With fresh impetus to uncover sexual abuse following the Savile scandal, police this week revealed that they have launched an investigation into the allegations.

This development came after Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, raised the matter in the House of Commons after victims contacted him to tell their stories. He described Smith as a ‘29st bully who imposed himself on his victims, leaving them humiliated, terrified and reduced to quivering wrecks’.

If what the MP says is true, why were Smith’s victims ignored for so long? Did someone cover up for Smith, and if so, could he have been protected by figures in the government of the day?

The question we must now consider is this: was Smith’s depravity indeed known about at the very highest levels of the Establishment, including the security services — and the plight of his victims ignored on the grounds of ‘political expediency’ at a time when he was key to a weak Labour government’s relationship with the Liberals?

Raised by his mother, along with a brother and sister, in a two-room house, Cyril Smith had, apart from a brief spell working for the tax office, been involved in local politics for much of his life.

In 1962, aged 34, he began taking a keen interest in youth matters in Rochdale — sitting on committees in charge of the Rochdale Youth Theatre, the Rochdale Youth Orchestra, the Youth Employment Committee, as well as the governorship of 29 local schools.

As well as these duties, Smith also directed his energies into setting up a hostel for boys from deprived families in Rochdale, approaching poor parents and explaining that their child would be better off  in care.

Funded with council cash, as well as donations from prominent businessmen and the local Rotary club, Cambridge House opened in 1962. Crucially, Smith kept his  own set of keys for the hostel,  meaning that he could come and go as he pleased.

Barry Fitton was a 15-year-old resident when he first had the misfortune to encounter Smith. Fitton was placed in the home because he was from a disadvantaged background — the son of a single mother — and had problems at school.

‘Everybody knew Cyril Smith,’ he told me. ‘He was very famous in Rochdale — he was very involved in things concerning young kids, boys’ clubs and things like that.’

Fitton says he was sexually abused a number of times by Smith. ‘I was embarrassed, of course,’ he says. ‘I felt this was not right, but what could I do? He was an authority figure and I had to do what he said. He was such an important guy, and I was 15 and scared to death.’

Once, he was told he was to have a medical examination at Cambridge House. ‘I thought it would be a doctor, but it was Cyril Smith. He told me to take my pants down and he started to fondle me. I thought it was odd and not right, but as far as I was concerned, he was completely powerful.’

Other victims have also come forward, describing almost identical abuse, as well as ‘spanking’ sessions when the gargantuan Smith would arrive to discipline boys accused of breaking rules — and then ‘comfort’ them after physically abusing them. When he discovered that Barry Fitton had  gone one day to hang around in Manchester, Smith summoned him to his office at the home for punishment, ordering the teenager to take his trousers down and bend over his knee. He then hit the boy.

‘He was big and heavy. You’ll have seen the size of his hands in pictures. Imagine how that would feel slapping you around,’ added Mr Fitton, now in his mid-60s and living in Amsterdam. ‘I was crying and he said “oh, there, there” and he stroked my bottom and fondled my buttocks.

‘There are still people in Rochdale who don’t believe that Cyril Smith was capable of doing these things. I think it should be brought out into the open, not just for my peace of mind but for other people’s peace of mind.’

So why did this not come out at the time? Our investigation has established that there were at least three separate police investigations into Smith — he became Sir Cyril after being knighted by the Queen in 1988 for public services — during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

We can also reveal that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions also sought outside opinion from a prominent barrister over whether charges should be brought in the 1970s. The barrister advised that there were sufficient grounds for prosecution. But the DPP still refused to act. Could the Home Office have blocked the charges?

But the biggest issue of all is this: If there was a conspiracy that allowed Smith to evade justice, was it founded on the cynical political calculations of the day?

For the fact is that throughout the years that his perversions were investigated by police, from 1974 until 1979, first the Conservatives and  then Labour wooed Smith’s Liberal Party.

The first General Election of 1974, in February, saw Labour win the most seats, but no overall majority. The Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, opened negotiations with Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe about forming a coalition government. Thorpe was himself the subject of squalid rumours  that would culminate in his trial  for the attempted murder of  his homosexual lover (he was  later acquitted).

When the Heath-Thorpe talks broke down, Labour’s Harold Wilson formed a minority government.
Although Wilson was returned with a slender majority in an election eight months later, that soon collapsed and in 1977 his successor, Jim Callaghan, and Thorpe’s replacement, David Steel, forged a Lib-Lab pact.

Wilson was aware of the scandal around Thorpe long before his trial shortly in 1979, and had asked Special Branch to keep him informed.

Any decision to prosecute Cyril Smith over allegations of homosexual child abuse could have proved just as devastating to Labour as to the Liberals. The question of who ran the country — so finely balanced because of the lack of a large majority — was at stake.

Throughout these years, Smith, popular throughout the land on account of his bluff Northern manner, was even touted as a government minister, and had served as his party’s chief whip.

According to police and legal sources with knowledge of these historic investigations, there was little appetite in Westminster for a high-profile trial.

The source says: ‘With the Jeremy Thorpe scandal hanging over the political scene, it may have been politically expedient to sit on the matter. It appears Sir Cyril’s influence politically was just too great, and the issue was quashed.’

This would explain one of the murkiest episodes of all in the Smith scandal: the removal by MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence wing, of police files containing reams of documents and sworn statements from victims of the MP.

In what serving officers of the time believed was part of a sinister cover-up, these police files — ‘thick’ with allegations from boys abused by Smith — were seized by MI5 and have never been seen since.

According to Tony Robinson, an officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, the files disappeared after an MI5 agent told him they needed to be sent to intelligence officials in London. After being taken out of the safe at Special Branch headquarters in Preston for despatch to the capital, the files vanished.

‘I looked through Sir Cyril’s file, which was kept in a safe in our office,’ he told a newspaper last week. ‘It was full of statements from young boys alleging abuse. It had been prepared for prosecution. Written across the top of it were the words: “No further action, not in the public interest. DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions].”’

To add to the stench of a cover-up, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), having initially claimed to have ‘no knowledge’ of any police investigation, admitted this week that it had now ‘unearthed’ its own file about allegations against Smith from as long ago as the 1960s.

Simon Danczuk MP told the Mail yesterday: ‘I am absolutely convinced there was a cover-up of Smith’s abuse. The question now is why, and why are ministers refusing to answer questions about police files full of allegations of abuse that were seized by Special Branch and buried?

‘Smith set a tone in Rochdale that made people like him think they could get away with this stuff, and I’ve no doubt that he was emboldened to carry on abusing children, all the time thinking that he was above  the law.

‘The daughter of a victim who’s now passed away has told us her father went to his grave angry and ashamed about Smith having abused him.’

Despite persistent inquiries by the Mail over the past  fortnight, the CPS has repeatedly refused to say who took the decision not to prosecute the MP, and why. Officials have also refused to answer any questions about specific allegations against the MP, or whether they will be made public.

The truth is that, as in the Savile case, the authorities seem to have been woefully reluctant to prosecute a high-profile figure, despite investigating the steady swirl of  allegations against him.

And many of those involved in the case — police, victims,  lawyers — believe the orders not to press charges came from the top, with Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, Labour Prime Ministers during different parts of the police probe, being involved in signing off decisions not to press ahead with charges so as not to upset their  Liberal allies.

Recent events prove that such allegations must be treated with all due caution — which is why the contents of those  police files take on such great significance.
So where are the police  documents now? Nobody knows — yet.

But what is certain is that, if there was an Establishment cover-up on behalf of Big Cyril, it is slowly but surely starting to unravel.

I’d like to draw your attention to the latest comment on this blog from Tom Watson’s source for his PMQ about “a powerful political paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10“.

Thank you murun for correction on my last comment. I fully appreciate how important it is to be 100% accurate with our facts.
It was already a very long comment and I was trying to bring it to a close.
I have been researching the facts for many years and knew that John Whittingdale became Brittan’s special adviser for the first time in 1985 a few months after Brittan was moved from the Home Office ( interesting political manoeuvre in its self given what he had been presented with ).

whittingdale

I should have stated that but the point I was making that given their combined knowledge and political/ personal awareness of the seriousness of the Dickens dossier at the time, Whittingdale knowing by now that his brother was a major player in PIE and organised paedophile networks,when they joined forces,albeit in a different Department, just months after the presentation of Dickens’s allegations, I would have been surprised if it hadn’t come up in conversation given the alleged closeness of ministers and their special advisers.

leon

Sorry for not being more specific.
The main issue in an argument as to why John Whittingdale is such a key person to write to and demand answers from today remains that as Chair of what has become in the last 3 years one of the most powerful weapons of an investigative Parliament he took a very active and high profile stance over other institutions failing to act in the face of a dangerous paedophile within the BBC/NHS/ guest of prime minister at Chequers for 13 years/ regular guest at Balmoral and we must demand he and his all party Committee now adopt the same exacting standards to how this obvious cover up was allowed to continue.

A starting point would be how many referrals did he make to Police/social services over 30 years when he knew ( as evidenced in letters written by Napier) that Napier was in professional contact with children and since Napier has returned to live in the family home with their mother was he aware of his contact with Sherbourne School pupils up until the Mirror featured it a few months ago.

Charles Napier is now being investigated by Operation Fairbank, who have already interviewed at least one of his victims.