"Look David of course I'm gay and that was criminal until a few years ago. I like boys and they like me as long as I pay them but it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 21. If I paid a woman of 20 to have sex with me you'd turn a blind eye. Most men do that; it's the oldest profession. Liberals are meant to be tolerant. Look at Jeremy Thorpe. We support gay rights."

Poor David Steel is well aware - media and punters in 2020 cannot deal with complexity. Simplify and sacrifice decency to the Gods.

I'm enjoying the spectacle of people with no awareness of social history getting very animated about something that took place in 1979 in a context they have no way of understanding.

But at least we now know it is not acceptable to be a liberal in the Liberal party these days. Which is useful.

I'm getting a distinct feeling of Deja Vu.

When Dame Janet Smith spent fruitless months scouring the assembled memories of BBC staff and found precisely zero evidence that Sir Jim was running around the BBC noncing or that anyone covered up the same and so instead had to stage a distraction by dragging up a manufactured tabloid scandal from 50 years earlier, thus making Tony Blackburn a sacrificial lamb. To nobody's benefit, given they brought him back into the fold the moment the fuss died down.

Similar the IIICCCASSS or whatever it has called has spent countless millions and turned up precisely zero evidence of the thing it was set up to discover. That there was no Westminster paedo ring or any institutionalised abuse. So instead all it could do was dig up Cyril Smith and turn David Steel into the sacrificial lamb. To no benefit or consequence.

The allegations against Cyril Smith don't stand analysis against a "gay bias". The allegations relate to kids in children's homes; some as young as 10 or 11. True or not: how can I know...

This one for me is not about age of consent/homophobic bias but the rape of - - literally - children. That was illegal then and now...

Steel's decision to "sit" on such concerns merits judgment now, or in 1979...

I think we'd all agree with you wyot if Steel was told about children. But was he? I doubt it; if he had been I'm certain he'd have done something. My imaginary conversation (above) is just a suggestion of what could have been alleged and said at the time.

Point taken JK and yes it is a possible scenario, I agree. That is why I stick to my guns about the judgment (either way) on Mr Steel. Did he know they were children or not? And if he was not explicitly told ages given the context was always children's homes why didn't he bother to find out?

Recent court cases and disclosure of different kinds show that, in the 70s for example men - with high positions in society - frequently abused children.

Catholic priests in Ireland were a good example. People suspected it - but were reluctant to come forward to accuse revered individuals, of things that were never spoken about.

At least now - everyone is fair game - and accusers will be heard. Even by the Pope; his predecessors denied it ever happened or could. And that it was immoral to even bring it up!

Some Cardinals - like McCarrick - were recently thrown out of the church for decades of abuse. It just dodn't happen 30/40 years ago!

And I'm sure, also, in the past thousands of people made false allegations for money or blackmail or revenge or child custody or a million other reasons and such crimes, likewise, were covered up, ignored, abandoned.

Totally agree.

False accusers jumped on the bandwagon - of this new openness and accountability.

Society wasn't ready to cope with both, at the same time.

Consequently many innocents were wrongly included, victimised and ruined...

then there was an aggressive, powerful and virtually unregulated media

which took advantage of the world's shortcomings - and worries

run by a just a few major players - some incapable, but most with specific agendas

One also has to bear in mind that, as with a certain pioneering disc jockey and philanthropist, Cyril Smith was far from the actual 'elite' - but as 'unsophisticated' working class Northerners are seen as fair game to be posthumously thrown under buses, that these characters were 'outsiders' who worked their way over the class glass celing will go unreported forevermore.

So "cover ups" claimed by enquiry and what evidence are we given
Steel told something or whatever but very vague about Cyril Smith. None of this makes any sense. As noted here already. I almost feel Steel got on the bandwagon because like others now been a "has been" so there is the opportunity for publicity and in Steel case getting on the bandwagon has back fired for Steel.

Remember Simon Danczuk the labour guy wanting attention had a ghost writer on Cyril Smith with the big promotion story about Cyril Smith been stopped on the motorway that was no more than story. No evidence has ever come to light to support the allegation.