Lord Steel said he had "assumed" that Smith had committed the offences, but said he took no further action because: "It was before he was an MP, before he was even a member of my party. It had nothing to do with me."
Lord Steel also described recommending Smith for a knighthood in 1988 and said he did not pass on any allegations about the sexual abuse of children because "I was not aware of any such allegations other than the matter referred to…which appeared to have been fully investigated."
Doesn't say much for either his judgement or standards when he was happy to recommend Smith for a knighthood even when he had "assumed" that his nominee was a child abusing pervert.
As a child in the WW2 I remember hearing on the "Home Service" radio of sentences on offenders mentioning "x strokes of the cane" , "hard labour" and "penal servitude". Along with "Treason", also abolished, some (not I) believe that a few of these orders should be repealed!
Nor to me, I'm afraid.
Could you spell it, preferably in words of one syllable.
In words of one syllable would be difficult if not impossible.
Steele, without the application of thumbscrews or anything similar, stated that he "assumed" that Smith had committed the child molestation offences that he'd been accused of, though the police dropped the inquiry.
Even though Steele clearly believed that Smith was a paedophile, Steele went on to recommend Smith for a knighthood in 1988. It doesn't matter whether Smith was guilty or not. The problem is that Steele obviously believed Smith was guilty, yet still recommended him for a knighthood. With judgement like that, he shouldn't be sitting on a park bench, never mind in the House of Lords.
Imagine the scene at Buck house. Her Maj taps him on the shoulders with the sword.