by
Les May
IN
his evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual
Abuse (IICSA) David Steel said:
'It
is unfortunate that some sections of the media have chosen to extract
certain passages of evidence and present them without the full
context.
'The
inquiry has a serious and sensitive job to undertake and spinning
evidence to generate sensationalist headlines only serves to distract
from panel's search of the truth.'
This
is undoubtedly the case, but what Steel himself said seems to show a
degree of confusion about what was published about Smith in 1979. In
addition he claims that he found out about Smith from material in
Private Eye.
What he does not mention is that he was contacted by the joint
editors of Rochdale
Alternative Paper
(RAP)
prior
to this. He also seems to have been influenced in what he said by so
called ‘evidence’ which has been spun to generate sensational
headlines since 2012.
Today
I listened to three people voice there opinion about Steel’s action
(or lack of action) on the BBC2 Politics Live programme. They
clearly knew nothing about what Steel knew or did not know in 1979,
but it did not stop them holding forth.
In order to clarify what Steel
would have known in 1979 about Smith’s antics I have appended below
the material published in the May and June 1979 editions of RAP.
‘Rochdale
Alternative Press (RAP)
May 1979 (Number 78)
RAP has
obtained evidence that, during the 1960’s, Cyril Smith was using
his position to get lads aged 15 – 18 to undress in front of him in
order that he could get them to bend over his knee while he spanked
their bare bottoms or let him hold their testicles in a bizarre
‘medical inspection’.
The evidence comes from the interviews
conducted by RAP over the last six months and in the form of
statements made on oath before a solicitor. The allegations are not
new – some were originally made as long as 15 years ago, but they
were made in statements to the police during their investigation of
these allegations in 1969/1970.
There is also disturbing
evidence to suggest that that police investigation may not have had
its proper end.
RAP decided last September to investigate the
allegations in order to determine the facts in an area dominated ever
since by rumour. This was prompted partly by the stance Smith had
adopted in the Thorpe affair. And partly by the fact that his
position as M.P., like his election campaign, was totally based on
his personal character of “Smith the Man” – there was part of
that man which has to date been concealed and which we feel to be
sufficiently disturbing for it to be made public.
Here we
present the results of our investigation:
(1) THE POLICE
INVESTIGATION
The investigation, carried out by Lancashire
Constabulary’s Task Force, started some three years before Cyril
Smith first became Rochdale’s MP. It lasted for around 6 months.
It
was stimulated by allegations made by a young Rochdale man while he
was being questioned by police in connection with charges of indecent
behaviour, in Risley. In the course of his examination he claimed
there was, in effect, one law for the powerful and another for the
poor. He alleged that Cyril Smith had done similar things but got
away with it.
Cyril Smith was then Alderman, Chairman of the
Education Committee, and soon to be prospective Parliamentary
Candidate for the local Liberal Party which he had not long ago
rejoined .
The young man concerned had been a resident of the
Cambridge House Boy’s Hostel, on Castlemere Street. That hostel
then became the focus of the police investigation as they interviewed
not only its residents but its committee members - including Bill
Harding, Harry Halstead, Alan Lovick and Ron Watson, who were asked
questions about the role of the committee members in discipline and
medical examinations.
These committee members, while admitting
with various degrees of reluctance that they had been interviewed by
the police, all denied then, as they did again to RAP, any knowledge
of improper activities within the hostel. Some of the residents
however had clear and, both to us and to some of the police,
convincing memories.
(2) THE HOSTEL
The hostel had
been set up by the Rochdale Hostel for Boys Association, a voluntary
group formed late in 1960 under the joint inspiration of Probation
Officer Bill Harding, its chairman, and Cyril Smith, its secretary.
With the aid of Rotary Club money to guarantee its rent for the first
two years, the assistance in renovations of the Round Table, and of
other committee members like Alan Lovick who provided cost price
furnishings, the doors of Cambridge House were opened as a hostel for
working boys in February 1962.
[Clipping inserted within
the main body of the article]...
“We earnestly hope that we
have found for boys a home in which they can find the right moral
character building influence.” Smith at the 1964 AGM of the hostel.
It had room for 20 boys, though it average less. The
solid basis of its membership was a dozen lads who were apprentices
with Whipp & Bourne. They had originally been employed in the
firm’s Scottish works but were moved to Rochdale when that closed
down. Increasingly, residents were also recruited from the ranks of
those in care or from broken homes.
It closed at the end of
1965, primarily through lack of funds and, in particular, because
after a lengthy debate, the council endorsed the decision of its
Children’s Committee not to increase the grant it was giving to the
hostel, by the additional £700 they were being asked to. Strangely,
there is no mention of the hostel project in Smith’s autobiography
‘Big Cyril’ which was published in 1977.
[Clipping
inserted within the main body of the article]...
“I believe
there is a place for corporal punishment....there is a place in law
for a good hiding.” Smith in the Rochdale Observer, 21 April
1979.
(3) THE STATEMENTS
During the investigation the
police took statements from 7 or 8 of the boys who had lived at the
hostel and from at least one who had not. RAP has traced 10
ex-residents and one who, though never having been at Cambridge
House, made a statement to the police.
Of the 10, three have
nothing but praise for Cyril Smith. The other 7 have all made
allegations which fall into one or both categories:
BEATINGS
They
have described to us Smith’s role in providing discipline. Two
extracts from sworn statements given to us illustrate the
procedure:
(1) From a man now married with 4 children and living
in Rochdale, describes how, while at the hostel and aged about 16 he
took a day off work from the job Smith had arranged for him. His
absence from the job was reported to the hostel and he was
interviewed by Smith:
“He gave me the choice between accepting
his punishment and leaving the hostel. I said I would accept his
punishment...He took me into the Quiet Room. He told me to take my
trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. When I had done that
he hit me four or five times with his bare hands on my bare
buttocks.”
(2) From a man, single, living and working in
Rochdale, then aged about 15, describes how after he had been
reported for a minor offence:
“Cyril Smith found out that I
had taken some money. He asked me if I would accept his punishment or
be dealt with by the authorities. I said I would accept his
punishment. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend
over his knee. He trapped my hands between his legs. He hit me many
times with his bare hand and I pleaded with him to stop because he
was hurting me. This took place at the hostel. Afterwards he came to
my bedroom and wiped by buttocks with a wet sponge.
MEDICALS
We have been told by Dr Ian McKichan, then Rochdale’s Police
Doctor, who provided medical services to the hostel and now lives in
Rugby that Smith was often present at the medical examinations. Some
of the ex-residents we interviewed have stated on oath that they had
what they took to be medical inspections from Smith himself. For
example, from the sworn statement of a man who lives locally in a new
house:
“After a few days in the hostel I was given a kind of
medical examination by Cyril Smith. He told me to take my trousers
and pants down. He held my testicles and told me to cough.”
We
have had similar experiences described to us by more than one other
person.
(4) OUTSIDE THE HOSTEL
Our investigation led
us to someone who never was a resident of the hostel but who turned
out to have also made a statement to the police. He still lives
locally with his wife and family and holds a good job. He was one of
the many young men Smith has helped over the years. In his case the
help came about 1967, after the hostel had closed, in the form of an
offer of a job at Smith’s Springs. He took it.
Increasingly,
the lad’s parents – he was about 16 – turned to Smith for help
in coping with his adolescent adventures. He still remembers Smith
telling him that he would help him to sort himself out, but that he
would do it his way. And that whenever he did something wrong, he
would have his trousers taken down and receive a beating.
On
three occasions, the now family man remembers, Smith took him into
the front room of his parents’ house after they had reported his
misbehaviour to him. On each occasion Smith endeavoured to remove his
trousers and bend him over his knee, even to the extent of a
wrestling match when met with resistance from the lad.
[Clipping
inserted within the main body of the article]...
“Its not a
very friendly gesture, publishing that, all he seems to have done is
spank a few bare bottoms.” David Steel’s Press Office, 22 April
1979.
(5) Jack McCann M.P.
During the course of the
police enquiry, in 1970’s early months, Smith sought help. He
visited Dr McKichan in Rugby. He called at the house of a local man
who had fostered one of the boys from the hostel . That lad had made
a statement to the police and Smith’s visit appeared to have had
the purpose of seeking ways of reducing the credibility of the
statement.
He also turned to Jack McCann, the then labour M.P.
for Rochdale. He had earlier turned to the same man for help in
getting his M.B.E. award of 1966. We have had described to us a late
night session between Smith and McCann who had been brought over to
Rochdale from his home in Eccles for the purpose. The meeting ended
with McCann offering offering to make representations on Smith’s
behalf.
Jack McCann’s widow, Alice, remembers her husband
being asked to help Smith. We know that McCann was concerned about
the situation in which he found himself since, though a man of close
confidence, he actually discussed it with one associate in the course
of a train journey between London and Manchester. That confidant
still vividly remembers the conversation and told RAP that McCann had
said that he had taken the matter up with the Chief Constable.
Beyond
that hint, we have not been able to find exactly what McCann did, or
if anything he did had any bearing on the result. Certainly the Chief
Constable concerned told RAP he has no memory of ever meeting him.
But there is one disturbing discrepancy in the stands now being
taken.
(6) THE D.P.P.
The police, at the conclusion
of their investigation, appear to have taken the view that there was
sufficient reason to warrant a court’s verdict. A file was
certainly drawn up by the Officer in charge of the Task Force Team
for submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
From that
point the story becomes disturbingly confused over the issue of
whether the file actually reached the D.P.P.
It has always been
believed by those in the know that the file was indeed sent to the
D.P.P. And that the D.P.P. returned it marked for no further action
on the basis of insufficient evidence.
That was what the
investigating team were told. That is also what associates of Smith
and then the local leading political figures in the Town – who were
officially informed of the proceedings – also believed. That was
what Smith himself was told by the investigating officer.
An
approach to the D.P.P. however failed to confirm that. On our first
request for information, the D.P.P.’s press office agreed to answer
the question of whether or not the file had been received by them.
After making the appropriate search, we were told that they had
failed to find such a file. A further approach brought the official
statement from the Director: “The D.P.P. cannot trace such a case
being referred to us, but cannot confirm or deny receiving it.”
The Director did confirm that, under the then applicable
regulations the “Chief Office of Police shall report to the D.P.P.
offences....which include indecent offences upon a number of....young
persons.”
We also wrote to Sir Norman Skelhorn, the man who
was the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the
investigation. RAP’s letter was forwarded to him by one of his
Club’s, the Athenaeum. On Wednesday 25th April we received a phone
call from someone claiming to be Sir Norman, on holiday and from a
coin box phone, who said that he could remember nothing at all about
such a case.
RAP also interviewed Mr. Palfrey, the Chief
Constable of Lancashire at the time. He agreed that such a file
“should have been sent” but said “I can’t say for sure
whether the file was sent or not.” He told us to approach Police
HQ. Which we have done several times. Their final comment was “We
decline to comment.”
[Clipping inserted within the main
body of the article]...
“I believe that a politician’s
private life is his own affair and should remain so unless private
behaviour jeopardises his political role. I suspect that most men and
women have a skeleton rattling round in their cupboard and I think it
should be allowed to remain there unless it can be proved that its
exposure can right some injustice done to another person.” ‘Big
Cyril’ (1977) Smith’s Autobiography.
(7) SPECIAL
BRANCH
The file, kept since at Preston, the HQ of Lancashire
Constabulary, came to the centre of national events in February/March
1974. Then there was discussion of a possible coalition between the
Conservatives and the Liberals. The possibility, if that happened, of
leading Liberals holding Ministerial posts, prompted the Special
Branch to acquire a copy of the Preston file on Smith which was
taken, with special security precautions, to London.
(8)
CYRIL SMITH
Throughout the police enquiry Smith asserted his
innocence of the allegations. He told his friends at the time that it
was a case of an attempt to damage him politically. He pointed to the
home backgrounds and records of some of the ex-residents of the
hostel as evidence of their lack of credibility. In his interview
with the police, with his solicitor present, he denied all the
allegations made against him. We have no reason to believe that he
would do anything other than that today. RAP wrote to him asking for
an interview to discuss the serious issues raised by our
investigation, but he did not reply.
(9) WHY NOW?
This
is not, though it will be suggested it is, a smear campaign in the
middle of an election. Our investigation started, as our records show
and those we talked to can confirm, last October when the election
was still thought to be a year away. When we published our last issue
– which announces the date of this one – we did not know that
this issue would be just a few days before an election.
The fact
is that our findings compel us to publish. Rochdale is being asked to
elect a man as M.P. on a purely personal basis. His election material
makes but passing reference to the Liberal Party. Smith himself has
consistently and consciously personalised the issue. Once we became
convinced that he had, over a period of years, interspersed his
undoubted good work with a clear abuse of his position for personal
ends, we felt had no choice but to make it that part of what
Rochdale’s electors should be asked to take into account.
It
had already been reported to us, before publication, that Smith
intended to issue a libel writ. That did not alter our conviction
that the men we had interviewed were telling the truth. Nor our view
that they should not have been left with the indelible mark of their
experiences at the hands of Smith. For too long, it is they who have
effectively been branded as wrongdoers.
(10) CONCLUSION
It
is not RAP’s function to pronounce on guilt or innocence. We do
however believe that the investigation of 1970 should have resulted
in a court case. We cannot but believe, like many of the men we
interviewed, that had the allegations involved a less prominent
person, it would have had exactly that result.
We do find Smith
guilty of the charge of hypocrisy, over his role in the Thorpe
affair. At the very least he might have been expected to remain
silent. He did not. We have established that Smith was a major source
of the Press’s information on the Liberal Party’s affairs at the
time. He was reporting, at his own initiative, the most confidential
of conversations with his leader, direct to the Daily Mirror.
We
accept that Smith may neither have committed or, even if the evidence
gathered by the police investigation had led to prosecution, been
found guilty of any criminal offence. But the practices described in
the statements made to both the police and RAP must be condemned, not
for any sexual content which may be read into them, but because they
present a serious abuse of authority.
Private preferences are,
and should remain, personal business. The use of public position for
personal gratification at the cost of exploitation of others must be
prevented.
There is also cause for concern in the question
of whether the file in this case reached the D.P.P.’s office. RAP
believes that this should be the subject of a full and impartial
investigation.
Rochdale Alternative Press
(RAP)
June 1979 (Number 79)
RAP’s revelations
concerning Cyril Smith published in our last issue was a story in
which the national press have been interested for a long time. What
prevented them from publishing previously was the laws of libel –
which still prevent them from publishing it now. RAP has not received
a libel writ from Smith.
Once the story was out the media
interest continued. Several taxis from Manchester offices of
newspapers arrived at Rochdale newsagents to buy a dozen copies each.
The People sent its representative, Harold Holborn, accompanied by a
Rochdale Observer reporter! John Derricot of the Mail, Bill Jenkins
of the Sun, Mike Nally of the Sunday Observer, Chris Bryer of
Granada, Chris House the crime correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph,
and the news editor of the Star have all had conversations with us
about the story.
Libel of course remains the problem, as of
course it has been ours. Clearly what we have said about Smith is
defamatory. The only defence therefore against libel is that what we
have said is true. Our London lawyer’s advice was simple: if you
know it to be true, print it. We did.
The one national paper
with enough courage to carry the story so far was Private Eye. It’s
edition of May 9th ran a summary of the RAP story as its lead
article. It repeated the allegations RAP had made and included the
extracts from sworn affidavits made by the young men concerned.
Private Eye has frequently received libel writs from politicians. It
was not received one in this instance. ‘
Posts
