Steel quits

[Nearly Sane]

And given this, good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51634431

[Aruntraveller]

Political expediency above human decency.

I don't know why I should be, given all the bastards in this world, but I am still shocked by this.

[Nearly Sane]

Political expediency above human decency.

I don't know why I should be, given all the bastards in this world, but I am still shocked by this.

Good. It is too easy to become inured to stuff like this

[jeremyp]

I don't understand this story.

Allegations were made in 1969.

The police investigated but brought no prosecution.

Ten years later the allegations were brought to David Steel's attention and he "assumed they were true".

Why would you assume the allegations were true after the police decided not to prosecute unless you had more information than I just set out? Why didn't Steel just say "there's not enough evidence to bring a prosecution therefore innocent until proven guilty".

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand this story.

Allegations were made in 1969.

The police investigated but brought no prosecution.

Ten years later the allegations were brought to David Steel's attention and he "assumed they were true".

Why would you assume the allegations were true after the police decided not to prosecute unless you had more information than I just set out? Why didn't Steel just say "there's not enough evidence to bring a prosecution therefore innocent until proven guilty".

because he knew about the behaviour? And the non prosecution by the police at the time isn't really indicative of anything.

[jeremyp]

because he knew about the behaviour?

How did he know? Did he have evidence that wasn't available to the police in 1969?

And the non prosecution by the police at the time isn't really indicative of anything.

It's indicative that they didn't think it worthwhile to prosecute. The normal reason for that is that the person turned out not to be guilty.

[Nearly Sane]

How did he know? Did he have evidence that wasn't available to the police in 1969?
It's indicative that they didn't think it worthwhile to prosecute. The normal reason for that is that the person turned out not to be guilty.

Quite possibly he had knowledge of actions that inclined him to believe. As to non prosecution, Savile.

[Harrowby Hall]

Quite possibly he had knowledge of actions that inclined him to believe. As to non prosecution, Savile.

Margaret Thatcher was told about Savile's ... err ... special interests, so we have been told, and still gave him a knighthood. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

[Nearly Sane]

Margaret Thatcher was told about Savile's ... err ... special interests, so we have been told, and still gave him a knighthood. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

Which is pretty much my point. Non prosecution then is not a high bar.

[Robbie]

David Steel says he assumed the allegations were true but if there was no proof and the police were doing nothing, what could he do on the basis of a hunch? He had other fish to fry at that time. I've heard many people talk about things in the past which they think may have been dodgy but with no evidence, were powerless to intervene at the time.

[SteveH]

Well, as Steel says, what was he supposed to do? He wasn't the police, and the police were apparently aware of the allegations but took no action.

[jeremyp]

Quite possibly he had knowledge of actions that inclined him to believe. As to non prosecution, Savile.

So everybody who doesn’t get prosecuted by the police must be a child rapist. Right.

Even if it were true, Steel probably wasn’t aware of Jimmy Savile's crimes in 1979.  What I don’t understand is why Steel would say now that he assumed the allegations were true but not his problem. He could just say the evidence was lacking at the time and the police failed to find enough to prosecute so he didn’t take it further.

[Nearly Sane]

So everybody who doesn’t get prosecuted by the police must be a child rapist. Right.

Even if it were true, Steel probably wasn’t aware of Jimmy Savile's crimes in 1979.  What I don’t understand is why Steel would say now that he assumed the allegations were true but not his problem. He could just say the evidence was lacking at the time and the police failed to find enough to prosecute so he didn’t take it further.

No, I was thinking more that non prosecution by the police doesn't mean someone was innocent.

I agree with your second part and I think that's what is causing the issue. I think we've moved on in our view of such allegations because in part of Savile and other cases but the idea that it was just something 'in the past' feels as it would have been odd even at the time.

[Udayana]

No, I was thinking more that non prosecution by the police doesn't mean someone was innocent.

I agree with your second part and I think that's what is causing the issue. I think we've moved on in our view of such allegations because in part of Savile and other cases but the idea that it was just something 'in the past' feels as it would have been odd even at the time.

Agree it would have been odd at the time, but not sure what suitable action he could have taken. However he later supported Smith knighthood and so must have suppressed any misgivings he had, probably for political reasons.

[SteveH]

I saw Cyril Smith on Euston Station once, wearing a rather loud pin-stripe suit. He must have kept two or three cotton mills in Lancashire in business, making his vast suits.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree it would have been odd at the time, but not sure what suitable action he could have taken. However he later supported Smith knighthood and so must have suppressed any misgivings he had, probably for political reasons.

I think that that's an example of things he shouldn't have done, and that's where the issue lies.

[jeremyp]

Agree it would have been odd at the time, but not sure what suitable action he could have taken. However he later supported Smith knighthood and so must have suppressed any misgivings he had, probably for political reasons.

If he had evidence not in the possession of the police, he should have notified them.

Even with just rumours and the abortive police investigation, when it came to the knighthood, a quiet word with somebody before it became public (or before Smith was informed) might have been appropriate.

[SteveH]

If he had evidence not in the possession of the police, he should have notified them.

Even with just rumours and the abortive police investigation, when it came to the knighthood, a quiet word with somebody before it became public (or before Smith was informed) might have been appropriate.

Thatcher insisted on giving Savile a knighthood, in spite of the rumours which were already going round.

[Nearly Sane]

Thatcher insisted on giving Savile a knighthood, in spite of the rumours which were already going round.

But Thatcher isn't on record as saying she thought Savile was guilty of sex offences, as Steel is in this case.

[Robbie]

I'm not in David Steel's head but from what I've read, he heard unsubstantiated rumours and had a gut feeling about Cyril Smith but surrounded by so many who believed Smith was God's gift, thought there was a fair chance he was wrong. There are always so many rumours doing the rounds who knows what to believe plus we are all urged to not listen to gossip. I always ignore gossip (admittedly things I hear are not in the child abuse category), maybe sometimes I shouldn't but to me people are innocent until proven guilty.  Let's face it, much gossip is just nastiness. We see plenty of that in the press such as the 'HateMail'.

David Steel probably now thinks he should have trusted his instincts but that's hindsight.

I didn't know about Thatcher and Saville but no doubt she was the same. There were apparently rumours about him circulating for years but lots of people dismissed them, thought he was a target because he was eccentric. We live and learn.

[Harrowby Hall]

I didn't know about Thatcher and Saville but no doubt she was the same. There were apparently rumours about him circulating for years but lots of people dismissed them, thought he was a target because he was eccentric. We live and learn.

It would appear - if comments I have heard on BBC Radio 4 are reliable - that Thatcher did not ignore just rumours but advice from senior civil servants.

[Robbie]

Up to a point, ie she was told he had talked about sexual activity but not with minors - like a lot of knighted people in show business. Whatever I think about Mrs T - mostly negative - I can't imagine she would have pushed a knighthood for someone who abused children, she was a mother herself and people who knew her well spoke about her compassion. There's no point in making her out to be worse than she was on a personal level.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23355531

It's very hard to believe the worst of people we generally like. I've not been in the position of knowing (knowingly) someone who has abused children but have found out other things about people which are difficult to process. When proven it is very hard indeed, so disillusioning. Must be 10x worse when it is sexual abuse. However those who do that are extremely manipulative and plausible. In Saville's case he didn't make really close friends but many like him do form quite close friendly relationships.

[Nearly Sane]

But Steel states he believed it and yet still supported a knighthood  for Smith

[Robbie]

Yes he did but didn't have evidence and no doubt was persuaded his hunch was wrong. Sometimes hunches are wrong especially when based on rumour and gossip. Who wants to think the worst of someone, really? It's all very well DS saying now that he believed the rumours.

All I remember of Cyril Smith is a large Liberal politician who appeared on TV sometimes & was generally liked (he was even on a religious programme once talking about his faith which is cringeworthy given what was later revealed).