So the question seems to be - were police ignoring past allegations of sex abuse and, even worse, child murder? I find it incredible and highly unlikely but I suppose it must be looked at. Enormous expense, no doubt.

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31907201

Nobody seems to spot that it is mainly about gay sex in the era when such a thing was illegal. Thus protection by police, media and politicians was par for the course (every sane person thought it was bonkers, even when it was only under 21s or under 18s). I'm certain even right wingers like Maggie considered it absurd and would brush under the carpet evidence that a great minister was gay.

So the cape of silence clearly existed. Now the barmy army - provoked by the Savile scandal - has kicked in and claim such cover up also protected child abusers and murderers.

And since our new justice laws accept that rumour is proof and fact ("you will be believed"), it was inevitable that we would reach a situation when dead people claiming that other dead people broke the law centuries ago would need investigating. Expensive, time consuming, budget munching investigation.

I'm not sure it is worth it. I'd prefer the taxes to be spent on health, education and proper policing.

no doubt Maggie , like Victoria, thought as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten horses she would ignore it.

But you are right the nutcase brigade are salivating that a ginormous Westminster pedo Ring will be expose.

And the police are natural enemies of the Tories (mostly) and the 'left' leaning tabloids are whipping this up.

Recall that old codger Tory Whip said something about "if hes' dabbling with little boys" etc but that was the way people talk....Now the Nut Brigade think he was serious.

madness everywhere, all around me..madness

I cant get over the supposed location. If I wanted to do something illegal the very last place I would choose to do it would be Dolphin square in full view of everyone!

And surely the next investigation HAS to be the other side of the coin; conspiracies to pervert the course of justice. Do police "assist" witnesses? Still, to this day, I wonder how a witness can swear, on the bible, that the police officer discussed with him, at length, the compensation he could get for his claims and then, a day later, the police officer swore she never talked about it to him. One or other perjured themselves. Just one of many oddities in my persecution.

A past head of the Met says he finds it incredible and unbelievable that police were surveying a flat in which children were being abused, without going in and arresting criminals within hours. Quite right. The obvious answer in this Cyril Smith connected latest drama is that it wasn't children but young men and the police were reluctant to arrest or prosecute men who were over 18 and were having consensual sex. They were probably waiting to see if younger men were involved. When they saw MPs they informed bosses who probably told them to abandon the operation as they, too, didn't want gay MPs (and sometimes police - gay men are in all walks of life) prosecuted for an absurd anomaly in the law.

Since then, of course, historical exaggeration has erupted. Much better story. So men have become children in the telling of the tale.

It's always seemed unlikely (to say the least) that such serious crimes as child abuse and murder would ever have been ignored. Not just by top cop bosses but by the lower ranks who simply would never have remained silent.

Not saying that the law wasn't being broken. Just that sex between men, consensual or not, was totally illegal until the late 60s and illegal for anyone under 21 until the middle 90s. But, quite rightly, most politicians, police and media people thought that absurd and "turned a blind eye".

Well said. I've pointed out repeatedly to everyone I know that if you buy into any of this crap you are simply participating in 1980s-era homophobia, the belief that the shirtlifters are coming to eat your children, reheated as a moral crusade. Utterly shameful.

all this is coming from the Exaro website which is feeding the UK tabloids and supposedly comes from a website of anonymous policeman.

But we have no proof they were policeman and some sound quite batty & obvious hated their superiors.

One who says he was Special Branch senior officer says it's all bullshit and a terrible insult to cops who would never turn a blind eye to obvious or proven child abuse.
He's been totally ignored. Wrong story.

and the other great question : why in the hell would any policeman want protect fat old sweaty Cyril Smith ?

what on earth would be gained?

Well Hedda - look at it like this. Top Ministers would decide that, if an investigation was only indicating consensual sex with young men (over 18) - even if money changed hands - should someone's career be ended even though, at the time, such sex was illegal with men though legal with women? And top cops (some of whom were gay and might well have indulged in similar consensual activity) would happily agree to kill the case. Indeed, most junior officers would feel the same. As those two nice Surrey Policemen said to me whilst they were sneaking a fag outside "JK we hate what's going on but we have orders from above".

Good to see Cyril's "biographer" Simon Danczuk clapping enthusiastically here - I thought "everybody knew"?

Yes poor old Simon - it's a bit like that old problem "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

20 year olds were considered minors until 1969 in the UK. The definition of a child was an under 14 (although I'm not sure if it was even a legal definition or of any great importance).

Homosexuality was criminalized in the 1885 Criminal Amendment Act - an act campaigned for mainly by suffragettes (i.e. feminist puritans). The same act also raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 (for heterosexuals), as well as criminalizing prostitution. The aim of the suffragettes was actually to raise it to 21, but even having it raised to 16 was a struggle and met a lot of resistance in parliament, only finally achieving success after a manufactured and now discredited tabloid moral panic over 'white slavery'. This was in an era in which girls started puberty at 17, and which the common view was that they were 'ruined' by pre-marital sex.

In the 1960's the age of consent set at 16 was being increasingly seen as a Victorian irrelevance, just as homosexuality was. You just have to watch a Carry On film or any number of movies, tv shows from that period for proof of this.

I doubt very much homosexuals of the time strictly observed age of consent laws which had no application to them, which were seen as irrelevant for heterosexuals, and set by the same backward Victorian puritans who had criminalized homosexuality.

Unless of course they had access to crystal balls or some other form of liberal progressive divination and could confidently predict that in the year 2015, the standard moral view would be that sex with minors is the worst crime possible (but minors as defined in 2015, not 1965) and that the morality of the year 2015 should be the morality to live by in 1965, regardless of the morality or actual law in 1965.

Correct Sasha but two points - my arrest was two days before the age of consent was equalised at 16 through Europe insisting. I'm pretty certain police were 100% aware that I'd never had sex with anybody under 16. And the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933, never repealed (to my knowledge) defines a child as "a person under 14". Those over 14 are defined as "young persons".

However, interestingly, the Sex Offenders Register assumes (I'm not sure it's official) that a child is "a person under 18".

So I am not allowed to work with 16 or 17 year olds although I am legally allowed to have sex with them (not that any would want to have sex with me).

If this has anything to do with the Elm Guesthouse rumours, one of the people who appears to be behind them was sentenced to 12 months for involvement in a boiler room scam, where scammers spin stories about fake investments. He can be seen in two YouTube videos telling gruesome stories to B. Maloney, who seems only too happy to listen.

I wonder how many of the people driving this have criminal records or a grudge against the police. They would surely find it fun to spin stories that have to be taken seriously and get the police into trouble for not listening to stories they didn't hear before.

Jo wrote:
If this has anything to do with the Elm Guesthouse rumours, one of the people who appears to be behind them was sentenced to 12 months for involvement in a boiler room scam, where scammers spin stories about fake investments. He can be seen in two YouTube videos telling gruesome stories to B. Maloney, who seems only too happy to listen.

I wonder how many of the people driving this have criminal records or a grudge against the police. They would surely find it fun to spin stories that have to be taken seriously and get the police into trouble for not listening to stories they didn't hear before.

It could also stem partly from misunderstandings and gossip. If someone spoke of "underage" parties in the sixties or seventies (correctly for the time) it is easy to see how forty years later the same statement was understood to mean actual children.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Jo wrote:
If this has anything to do with the Elm Guesthouse rumours, one of the people who appears to be behind them was sentenced to 12 months for involvement in a boiler room scam, where scammers spin stories about fake investments. He can be seen in two YouTube videos telling gruesome stories to B. Maloney, who seems only too happy to listen.

I wonder how many of the people driving this have criminal records or a grudge against the police. They would surely find it fun to spin stories that have to be taken seriously and get the police into trouble for not listening to stories they didn't hear before.

It could also stem partly from misunderstandings and gossip. If someone spoke of "underage" parties in the sixties or seventies (correctly for the time) it is easy to see how forty years later the same statement was understood to mean actual children.

and therein lies many a problem.
we have rent boys & girls (some underage and some legal age) now classed as 'one size fits all' victims and history is re-written.

and of course many were victims of a society where poverty was/is rife,social services underfunded, couples having children when they completely unsuited to be parents etc etc.

trying to correct the ills of 1950s thru 90s via 2015 thinking.

there will be no money keft in till at end.