The correction stated: “Lord Steel has asked us to point out that he received no complaint against Mr Smith’s activities when a Liberal MP.
“He was aware from an article in 1979 of allegations against Cyril Smith of unusual behaviour with boys from the first half of the 1960s.
“He questioned Mr Smith about those allegations. Mr Smith denied any wrongdoing and said (as it turned out correctly) that the matter had already been investigated by the police who had closed their file.”
I have absolutely no idea what is the truth here. But we do have something interesting here.
So, multiple allegations of child noncery. OK.
Police investigate, a number of times, and no further action taken. OK.
So, what’s the correct answer?
That the police investigated and there was nothing to prosecute? Or that there was a cover up because the prosecution didn’t happen?
Either answer is possibly correct. But everyone seems to be insisting that the first couldn’t possibly be true and that the second must be true. The very fact that there wasn’t a prosecution is proof perfect that there was a cover up, no one at all seeming to think that it might mean that a prosecution wasn’t justified.