VIP paedophile ring

[Eric Arthur]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31789827

 

Margaret Thatcher was made aware of child abuse allegations involving Cyril Smith before he was knighted in 1988 Cabinet Office documents have shown."

 

Read the actual article instead of the headline.

[exxon]

What did she know? How do you now that she knew?

 

She knew that Cyril Smith had been questioned by police who had determined there was no evidence against him that would stand up to cross examination in a court of law.

[Anna B]

She knew that Cyril Smith had been questioned by police who had determined there was no evidence against him that would stand up to cross examination in a court of law.

 

Read the article.

[exxon]

Read the article.

 

I've read the article and seen the report on TV.

 

Why don't you highlight the bit that you think is relevant and I'll list the bits you chose to ignore. What part of innocent until proven guilty would you like to be removed from UK law?

 

"Lord Shackleton wrote that police had investigated Smith in 1970 for "indecent assault against teenage boys" between 1961 and 1966, but the director of public prosecutions (DPP) had decided "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction"."

 

Lord Shackleton said it would be "slightly unfortunate" if this "episode" stopped Smith receiving the honour.

Edited November 4, 2015 by exxon

[Eric Arthur]

Read the article.

 

You must do us the same courtesy before you demand that others do what you obviously haven't done yourself.

 

Read the article you posted please.

[Anna B]

You must do us the same courtesy before you demand that others do what you obviously haven't done yourself.

 

Read the article you posted please.

 

Oh I have, plus several more articles, all freely available for those who care to look, which say pretty much the same as this:

 

'Thatcher was explicitly warned that awarding a knighthood to the Rochdale MP risked damaging the 'integrity of the honours system.'

A government Mandarin also wanted to know why Cyril Smith had not been charged with child abuse and was seeking answers.

'The Civil Service feared the secret Smith police file might be made public in 1982 - when a burglary at the Fleet Street offices of the Sun newspaper revealed the editor was in possession of a copy.'

This revelation will lead to speculation that the break in was an attempt to cover up Smith's crimes.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984529

 

Please do a little research before accusing others.

[exxon]

Oh I have, plus several more articles, all freely available for those who care to look, which say pretty much the same as this:

 

'Thatcher was explicitly warned that awarding a knighthood to the Rochdale MP risked damaging the 'integrity of the honours system.'

A government Mandarin also wanted to know why Cyril Smith had not been charged with child abuse and was seeking answers.

'The Civil Service feared the secret Smith police file might be made public in 1982 - when a burglary at the Fleet Street offices of the Sun newspaper revealed the editor was in possession of a copy.'

This revelation will lead to speculation that the break in was an attempt to cover up Smith's crimes.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984529

 

Please do a little research before accusing others.

 

Or to put it in a nutshell. No proof whatsoever other than speculation, and only the fact appears to be a police investigation that conculded there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosection.

 

I know the innocent until proven guilty is inconvenient to your case. But just what do you think you can prove that couldn't have been proved under Thatchers government, Major's government, Blair's government, Brown's government or the Coalition government? It all comes down to that inconvenient obstacle of evidence.

 

 

We don't convict folk on rumour and speculation in the UK. That is reserved for places like North Korea.

Edited November 4, 2015 by exxon

[cassity]

Or to put it in a nutshell. No proof whatsoever other than speculation, and only the fact appears to be a police investigation that conculded there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosection.

 

I know the innocent until proven guilty is inconvenient to your case. But just what do you think you can prove that couldn't have been proved under Thatchers government, Major's government, Blair's government, Brown's government or the Coalition government? It all comes down to that inconvenient obstacle of evidence.

 

 

We don't convict folk on rumour and speculation in the UK. That is reserved for places like North Korea.

 

Are you denying thatcher was aware of the "Smith" scandal before the honour was given?

[Anna B]

Or to put it in a nutshell. No proof whatsoever other than speculation, and only the fact appears to be a police investigation that conculded there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosection.

 

I know the innocent until proven guilty is inconvenient to your case. But just what do you think you can prove that couldn't have been proved under Thatchers government, Major's government, Blair's government, Brown's government or the Coalition government? It all comes down to that inconvenient obstacle of evidence.

 

 

We don't convict folk on rumour and speculation in the UK. That is reserved for places like North Korea.

 

I really do wonder what you're getting out of this. Jimmy Savile wasn't convicted of anything either although this is what started the revelations, - so I assume you think he was innocent too?

[*Belle*]

Another very convenient burglary:BBC news