You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > A Larger Than Life Predator

When confronted with irrefutable evidence that one of the most famous MPs in his party's history had abused dozens of boys, how would you expect a leader to respond? Nick Clegg said in September that he was "shocked and horrified" by the case Channel 4's Dispatches had gathered against Sir Cyril Smith. Its journalists showed that the 29-stone Liberal member for Rochdale had raped and abused from the 1960s to the 1980s, while hiding behind the persona of a comedy northerner. Clegg's outraged tone was an advance on the eulogy he gave when his grotesque colleague did the world a favour by dropping dead in 2010. "Everyone in Rochdale truly adored him," Clegg said then. "This really was a larger than life figure and he will be sorely, sorely missed."

Alas, the sadder and wiser Clegg spoiled his retraction by adding that he wanted the police to carry out a thorough investigation into Smith. He should have known that the police had carried out an investigation years ago. He should have known that in 1979 a few good journalists on the Rochdale Alternative Press and Private Eye had exposed how the authorities had done nothing about the detectives' reports that Smith had administered punishment beatings on children in Rochdale's Cambridge House Children's Home. 

Clegg may even have heard how their exposé did no good, and left the journalists with a feeling every decent reporter experiences at least once in a lifetime. You have done all the work, and uncovered a sensational story. The lawyers approve it. Your paper prints it. No writ arrives. You wait for the phone to ring but it never does. There are no questions in parliament, or agonised debates by the talking heads on the radio. Rival newspapers respond to your scoop by ignoring it. "Where is everyone?" you want to cry. "Where's the follow-up?"  

There is none. In Smith's case a grateful establishment followed up by giving him an MBE "for services for youth" in 1966, and a knighthood in 1988.

Of all the sex abuse scandals now coming out of the BBC, Liberal Democrats, Socialist Workers Party and Catholic Church, the Smith affair is the most revealing because it was a secret in plain view. Anyone who wanted to know knew. But everyone wanted to forget. Liz MacKean, who walked out of Newsnight after its disgrace of an editor refused to run her exposé of Jimmy Savile, fronted the Channel 4 investigation — The Paedophile MP: How Cyril Smith Got Away With It. She found many similarities with her censored scoop. Smith, like Savile, seemed an altruist devoted to helping children in need. Smith, like Savile, was the type of celebrity the British elevate to the status of "national treasure" —people who are so cheerful and familiar that the very sight of them brings a smile to your face. For Smith was more than a politician. He was the roly-poly barrel of fun who appeared on every chat and game show; appeared indeed, alongside Savile. (They must have had so much to talk about in the green room.) National treasures are difficult for the police, their victims or journalists to take on. Not the smallest of reasons to be wary of the celebrity-driven campaign to impose political surveillance on the press is that the Leveson "reforms" will make it harder still to investigate the famous. 

View Full Article
November 1st, 2013
1:11 AM
So now the both Jimmy Saville's and Cyril Smith's history of hidden sexual abuse are being used to alert us all to the dangers of press regulation. Cohen is not the only journalist to make this point but but he seems to assume that readers of this column are rather dimwitted. Why else would he gloss over the fact that his vaunted free press failed for decades to expose either of these two "national treasures" and in fact colluded in the cult of celebrity which helped to protect them. While I do not like the idea of politicians deciding what free speech is acceptable (Leveson's silly comment about the press "marking their own homework" is a particularly irritating simplification) I am growing weary of journalists propagating the idea that their profession is that of heroic speakers and seekers of truth with only a minority of gutter, tabloid mavericks sullying the good name of the free press.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.