So now we know .... Cyril Smith sexually abused boys.
Who says so? The police - and their word is now all that counts.

BUT they fail to say why they didnt prosecute - it simply does not make sense (in a non-hysterical world).

The police in those days were very homophobic, so why was he not persued?

Perhaps there are "clues" in the report .... it says (of the eight allegations) the file -

"contained statements that were very similar in nature from the eight alleged victims"

oooh ! A bit of coercing and suggestion perhaps?

It also says (DPP speaking) -

"I do not consider that if proceedings for indecent assault were to be taken against Smith, there would be a reasonable prospect of conviction"

The wooly-eyed thinking goes on -

Nazir Afzal, chief prosecutor for the CPS in the North West, has now accepted that this "way of thinking bears little resemblance to how such cases are assessed today".

He confirmed that when the CPS carried out a review of the case in 1998, it was decided no proceedings would be brought against the MP, because he had been told in 1970 that he would not be charged, a decision that could only be reversed if new evidence was unearthed.

so why then did they carry out the "review"?

It gets even more dubious -

The original decision not to proceed was down to the fact there was no independent corroboration of the alleged victims' evidence, the CPS said.

"[But] victims of historical sexual abuse are entitled to justice, and prosecutions that would not have been attempted in the past are now brought successfully," the CPS said.

So ... to summarise, all complaints were "very similar in nature" (suggesting someone had dictated them? - at a time when police routinely interviewed people without lawyers present) ... the DPP concluded that there was no prospect of a conviction .... the case was "reviewed" - even though they knew there was nothing they could do with it ... but now, today a prosecution WOULD take place, even without independent corroboration.

You couldn't get more blurry-eyed thinking, can you?

'similar in nature' claims : could have got together beforehand to rehearse...and there is only a limited number of actions someone can take..ie : in Smith's case it appears to be slapping and fiddling.

wrong of course if true but I suggest anyone who claims it ruined their life is exagerating.

I, like probably everyone of my generation was paddled and got a good six of the best many times. Why did it not ruin my life ?

is being slapped on the backside ala big fat Cyril any worse then a developing child having a cane crashed down upon their delicate palm ?.

at the time we all concluded- the English master's face would go bright red with veins popping..his face was worse than the punishment. We survived and thrived!

Virtually everybody I speak to says "Savile's accusers must be telling the truth; they all are so similar" and my answer is "yes, almost exactly the same as the media coverage".

It is astonishing that whilst saying "I never believe what I read in the papers" people fail to understand how much power the media has.

What the bent-media of course don't tell (cos their BENT).

Is that bent-cops so called 'similar fact evidence' are in fact just 'similar allegations'.

SO similar because BENT-cops prejudicially prime the (ofen proactively trawled) low-income/low-achiever fake complainants in all-untaped interviews.

Rehearsals for later theatrically staged official videos for gullible, too trusting juries sitting with SUNazi/D. Malice/Bent-Beeb propaganda in the bent-media Mind-Raped brains.

Natch ALL unreported by a that same bent-media.

Footnote: Until the raving-Right/Wrong-un Tory coward Howard changed the law in the naughty '90s, uncorroborated evidence of a child was inadmissable in court. Hence no prosecutions in the Sexy '70s.

As ever Hedda nails it.

Why no lives ruined by a vast 90%+ NON-SEX Serious Child Abuses ?

Answer - cos NON-SEX abuse in Sex-Filled 'Family Friendly' bent-media isn't, SEXY !

So, someone is "punished" without charge / without evidence and without trial.

What can possibly the sense in this?
To accuse Smith after he is dead can only hurt his family, for (just like Savile) he cannot stand trial.

Is the objective so the police can say (in future) "if we say they are guilty then they are guilty"?

Dangerous times we live in.