Cyril Smith Saga: More Old News?

by Les May

THE ‘revelation’ that in January 1970 Cyril Smith approached the police to find out if he was going to be charged following the investigation into allegations that he had indecently assaulted young men at Cambridge House hostel in the 1960s is ‘old news'.  It has been in the public domain for about three years and came to light as a result of a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS).
He told police that he was concerned that if he were charged it would prevent him from standing as a candidate in the forthcoming general election.  I see nothing sinister in this.  It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
On this occasion, acting on legal advice, he declined to make a formal statement.  But at the end of February 1970 he returned with a prepared statement which did not address the allegations directly.  It read as follows:
‘I am not prepared to make a statement at this stage as to the allegations made by the eight boys, particulars of which you have supplied to me.  I am, however, prepared to say this.  I was active in the running and administration of the hostel. [Redacted]  The object was to help the under-privileged and deprived boys of over school leaving age, many of whom had social, domestic, health and other problems and to get them settled continuous and productive employment.  In respect of some of the boys, we were faced with difficult problems of discipline arising from general misconduct, [redacted] and work shyness.  At all times, we were in loco parentis to the boys as part of an agreement signed by each boy on his entering the hostel.  I produce a copy of the agreement.  The warden and her husband lived on the premises and the “Quiet Room”, which had no lock on the door, was some three feet away from their living quarters.  Members of the committee were wont to call at the hostel at all times unheralded, and [redacted] would call at least three or four times per week to talk to the boys, sometimes in my presence, but usually in my absence, and they would discuss personal or other problems with the boys.  I should like to point out that two of the boys resident in the hostel were elected to represent the boys and attended the monthly committee meetings.
'I never heard a single complaint as to any conduct of mine being made by any boy or any committee member or anybody else, and I am quite astounded at these present complaints made so long after the alleged events.  I am in the position to call very many witnesses not only as to my general integrity, which has never heretofore been questioned, but also as to the unfailing help and support that I have always been known to give to my fellow townsfolk in general, and the youth of the town in particular. In fact, the greater part of my life has been dedicated to these ends.  Personally, I would just like to point out that the mere existence of these allegations, if they become known, may be damaging to my public and private career.  But, at the same time, I wish to state most emphatically that I have never behaved in any indecent way towards any of these boys, but have done my best to help them at a difficult stage in their lives.’
The redacted words appear to refer to the names of people who some might see as ‘guilty by association’ or accusations against residents of Cambridge House.
It seems clear that Smith’s defence would have relied upon his ‘good standing’ in the town the delay in the allegations being made.  Having seen copies of the affidavits signed in 1979 by some of the men assaulted I have no doubt that he did do some things that most people would consider improper. It should however be pointed out that the 1979 RAP (Rochdale Alternative Paper) article stressed that his behaviour amounted to abuse of power and did not seek to emphasise abuse of a sexual nature.
What does seem to be new is the fact that when the editors of RAP, David Bartlett and John Walker, asked the police about allegations against Cyril, the police lied in their reply.
Whether the police were approached by any of the mainstream press after the RAP article was published we do not know. If they were and gave the same answer, it would explain why the allegations in the RAP article were not taken up by the mainstream press.
One can construct any number of ‘conspiracy theories’ around the fact that the police lied to Bartlet and Walker in 1979.  But none of these exonerate the print and broadcast media. Had the media followed the lead given by RAP, Smith would have been finished as a politician, something he acknowledges in his statement to the police in February 1970.  Had the voters of Rochdale taken note of the RAP article they would not have voted for him in the May 1979 election.  The story of Smith and Cambridge House was ‘hidden in plain sight’ for 33 years until an editor of RAP, John Walker, and an editor of Northern Voices (NV), Brian Bamford, in July 2012 tracked down two of the men assaulted at Cambridge House. Simon Danczuk only became aware of this after Paul Waugh, who ran a political blog, contacted NV in the autumn of 2012 and passed on the story to him.
To my mind the lessons to be drawn from this are twofold.  The first is the importance of the protecting and widening the Freedom of Information Act.  Not least making the supplier of the information responsible for its accuracy and for fulfilling not just the letter of the law, but its spirit also.
The second is to recognise the importance of independent news sources like RAP and NV.  Along with the rest of the press my local paper declined to print the RAP story in 1979.  At that time it was independent and had its own team of reporters.  Now it is part of a larger group so that the same material, by the same authors, appears in the local and regional press. In other words the press is much less diverse than it was then.  Without the original RAP story and the more recent efforts of Messrs Walker and Bamford the story of Smith and Cambridge House would never have been told.