Article Tools

Rumours about the "Rochdale Spanker" have been circulating for years but Sir Cyril Smith was allowed to go to his grave without punishment. The prolific paedophile Jimmy Savile also died with his full honours. How were they allowed to get away with child abuse and the ruination of the lives of innocents?

More than ten years ago a friend told me that Cyril Smith was a paedophile. The friend had it on good authority from a journalist he rated. The thoughts and images that the hearsay reports generated were disgusting.

It was bad enough for a child to be abused but to be abused by someone who was physically so repulsive seemed worse. Surely, if it were true, he wouldn’t have been allowed to get away with it…would he? The Liberals nor the Liberal Democrats would allow a scandal of this size…would they? On these grounds and on that which suspected a “fat-boy witch hunt” I dismissed the second hand account as false. I was wrong! Cyril Smith is now acknowledged as a child abuser.

Cyril Smith (the grossly overweight man at the podium) in 1987 at the Liberal Party Conference. The “Rochdale Spanker” as he was widely known went on to represent the Rochdale MP for the Liberal Democrats. Fellow MPs either did not know of the rumours or chose to ignore them. Image from Wikipedia

Until Jimmy Savile was publicly recognised to be the monster paedophile he was it was widely believed that child abusers were low-key and undistinguished. In the wake of the Savile case and now the revelations about Cyril Smith we need to reassess that view. We also need to profile these child molesters and root out all those, who continue with their inexcusable practices, who ruin the lives of countless children every year.

We know from the cases of the perverts Savile and Smith that:

  • They work with children.
  • They hold positions of authority in relation to children.
  • That their victims were never believed.
  • That they were allowed to continue their abuse from within well established organisations.
  • That they selected vulnerable children to abuse.
  • They were investigated by police but allowed to continue.

In theextract below, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) blog (, we can detect most of the above. The CPS blog quotes the one page decision and grounds not to prosecute Smith that were released in March 1970 by its predecessor the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions). In a sinister twist reminiscent of a cover-up the CPS reports in the same blog that the 80 page report relating to the sexual abuse of children by Cyril Smith and its covering letter no longer exist.

“I have considered your file and I observe that eight young men, whose ages range from nineteen to twenty-four years, allege that between 1961 and 1966 Smith subjected them to various forms of indecency and I also observe that Smith denies their allegations. Any charges of indecent assault founded on these allegations, as well as being somewhat stale, would be, in my view, completely without corroboration. Further, the characters of some of these young men would be likely to render their evidence suspect.

“In the circumstances, I do not consider that if proceedings for indecent assault were to be taken against Smith, there would be a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I do not, therefore, advise his prosecution.”

Have Your Say!

How can we protect children? How should we proceed against paedophiles? Please make your comments below. If you have more to say on this matter you can publish on this website. Click Here for more information and to join. There is no cost involved.