Nurturing Porkies.
Little Porkies grow into whoppers… Porkie Farming nearly became a profitable business.
Back in 2007, a young carpenter registered a company ‘Ddc Contracts‘, to carry out a joinery business, along with ‘possibly’ his partner, Lorraine Smith. They lived in a pleasant enough street in Kent. Hook Lane, Bromley. Within two years the company was in trouble – Companies House was threatening to strike them off the register.
Perhaps they downsized their home to get out of trouble? By 2009, they had moved to a less salubrious area, Powster Road, Bromley; smaller houses, lower overheads; they somehow managed to keep ‘Ddc’ afloat and Companies House withdrew the threat. Lorraine apparently moved house at the same time.
The new business plan didn’t last long – another 12 months went by, and Companies House had lost patience and dissolved the business. Despite the promises which had resulted in the first warning being withdrawn, they had never managed to file any accounts.
Undeterred, our young carpenter was back in September 2013. He’d had an idea! He would register a company to carry out a joinery business. He’d call it ‘DDC contracts’ instead of ‘Ddc Contracts’. He’d make his old favourite Lorraine Smith, the company secretary. Again. By now they’d moved to an even lower value property in Avondale Road, Bromley. Eighteen months later Companies House were threatening to strike the company off the register. No accounts again. No reprieves this time. 5 months later, Companies House abruptly pulled down the shutters on DDC Contracts.
However, our young carpenter had had yet another brainwave! ‘Animal Charities’ – they make money don’t they? They are a difficult prospect when you live in a maisonette in a Bromley side street, but undeterred, he acquired a piece of land next to the golf course in Orpington. Registering as a charity takes a lot of energy, so he didn’t actually bother with that, but returned to his old friends, the company formation agents. Now, he had a Suzanne Huckle as company secretary. She used to be in charge of the tendering system for repairing wheelchairs for Bromley hospital. Curiously, she seemed to be living in the same small maisonette in Avondale Road. No word on whether the long suffering Lorraine had moved out or was just especially understanding.
Soon a local paper was calling him a ‘heroic carpenter’ who was repairing one house ‘free of charge’ whilst striving to build an animal sanctuary with the other hand – when ‘thieves ruined his dream’ by stealing £3,500 of wood which was destined to build shelters for the poor animals…just as soon as he could get planning permission for this venture, which sadly he hadn’t thought of beforehand…
Another local paper and ‘Then the centre ‘was burgled again‘ and this time the fencing material destined to contain the animals was stolen. Our young carpenter with his closed down carpentry business seemed to be spending a lot of time storing wood on this land…
Need I tell you that within 15 months, Companies House had pressed for accounts, received none, and 4 months later the animal sanctuary was struck off.
Not before our young carpenter had convinced another local paper that a) the sanctuary was a charity, and b) that it was a deserving cause. He told them that he ‘had discovered two 30 stone’ porkies roaming outside his ‘animal sanctuary’ and had taken them in – but big porkies are expensive to feed, so any donations would be welcome…the Surrey Comet fell for it.
For more information or to donate visit: jodeenanimalsanctuary.webs.com/
Don’t bother following the link, it is long since defunct.
A month later, and our trainee porkie rearer was phoning the Daily Star; now the 30 stone beastie, Bonking Boris, ‘named after Boris Johnson’, had been there ‘for a year’ and had fathered 100 piglets to the strain of Black Sabbath…The sanctuary had apparently been there for a year longer than Companies House had been told…
Come June, and ‘Bonking Boris’ had been renamed ‘Bacon‘ for yet another local newspaper. Still weighing in at 30 stone mind you, now he was the centre of a story of how the sanctuary had been targeted ’15 times’ in its short life. ‘Bacon’ had ‘heroically’ saved the life of the 4 piglets he had fathered…no mention of the other mythical 96…
The ‘heroic sanctuary owner’ seemed to be permanently out and about on the cyberwaves, pleading for donations to his cause:
HELP we are not charity status, we are funding this ourselves, we are going without for our love of animals. we have 50 unwanted pigs and piglets, ponies and horses. we need your help, labor, tools, knowledge on how to set up a charity or funds, please call on 07803845731. We are desperate, PLEASE HELP
The following month he hit the Sevenoaks Chronicle, saying ‘he may be forced to close down if a recent spate of thefts continues’.
Jodeen Animal Sanctuary, which is open to the public free of charge all day Saturday and Sunday, would like volunteers or donations to help with the running of it.
His Facebook page appealing for donations was doing moderately well too.
The same month that Companies House was striking the company off, the porkie specialist was phoning the Daily Mail, telling them that a neighbouring greenkeeper had been fired for ‘giving water to his animals’.
His centre was set up in 2011 and is run as a charitable trust for ill-treated horses, pigs and sheep.
Amongst the many desperately upset readers who commented on that article, was one who claimed to be the owner of the sanctuary – extolling the virtues of those who donated funds, food, and essentials to the poor animals:
This is Danny Day and I would like to thank you all for your comments which I am very pleased to report that that the management have now agreed to reinstate Gary and allow us water from their main. We would also like to thank the fire service who stepped in and helped when the dispute was going on. We have been trying to raise enough funds to get direct supply from Thames water supply but unfortunately every time funds come in it has only been enough to supply foods vet bills and fencing. We would also like to thank spitalfields market who supply us with all unwanted fruit and veg which supplements diet of the animals.. We are continuing to raise funds for direct water and power supply. Please visit our web site which is jodeenanimal.com or Facebook called jodeen sanctuary and see all the animals and please feel free to come and visit. Many thanks Dan Sue and all the animals x
No mention of Lorraine, just ‘Danny and Sue’.
Notice something else though? ‘We would also like to thank the fire service who stepped in and helped when the dispute was going on.’
For ‘Boris’ and ‘Bacon’ were not the only Porkies ‘Danny’ was nurturing to maturity. He had other rashers in his pan.
‘Danny’ was the fantasist who had been busy claiming that Fireman David Bryant had brutally raped him in a Dorset fire station some 40 years ago. David went to prison for six years; later increased to 8 years when the ‘victim’ claimed it wasn’t long enough. He claimed that the event was responsible for his ‘two failed marriages’. It is unclear whether he was lying about being married to the Ms’ Smith and Huckle, or whether they might more properly have something to do with his failed marriages?
Barrister Blogger has exhaustively deconstructed the case in a blistering article, I wouldn’t presume to follow in his footsteps.
Come June of this year, young – middle aged now – Danny was back in the local paper announcing that he was suing the Fire Brigade for £100,000 for aggravated damages in respect of the ‘rape’. He needed, his lawyer said, an urgent £30,000 interim payment. He didn’t get it.
Mrs Bryant had done her own detective work; producing maps of buildings to show that rooms Danny had claimed to be in, didn’t exist at the time; that the pool table he claimed to have been raped on, wasn’t bought until years later. That, added to the medical reports that Danny had had to produce for the civil claim, showing that he was an inveterate lifelong liar, was sufficient to finally clear David Bryant’s name and secure his release from prison – whence he had been for the past three years.
Unusually, and owing to Danny Day’s love of appearing in local newspapers, we know his name. Future victims of his lies will be forewarned.
We will not know whether he has given evidence against other individuals unless they, or their legal team, happen to chance upon one of the many articles detailing Danny’s career in Porkies, and use it to mount an appeal. We will never know if Danny appears as one of Savile’s ‘victims’. Nor may we know how many other Danny Day’s are out there, pushing notes through the door of innocent people in the hope of eliciting a few bob to help their financial troubles – and making statements to the police regarding sexual abuse when they fail to comply.
I was listening to Jill Saward on the radio this morning. She has an interesting view that it is the fault of rapists that people make false allegations. If rapists didn’t rape, then people wouldn’t make these false allegations…
She is adamantly against the idea of concealing the name of those accused of sexual offences because people ‘need to know who the rapists are’ so they can protect themselves.
I would argue that exactly the same holds true for false allegators like Danny Day. Nadine Milroy-Sloan rather proves my point. Fantasists don’t stop at one porkie – they keep going.
False allegations don’t just affect one member of the family – an expendable ‘male’, to the feminists. They affect the entire family; wife, and if there are children under 16, those children being taken into care.
Being raped is a terrible thing – but so is going to prison for three years, so is children being forced into care homes because Dad has wrongly been accused of abuse.
- tdf
July 29, 2016 at 1:12 pm -
I think I read a feminist announcing on Twitter that a wrongful rape conviction could be a good thing in some cases as the wrongly accused male might have learned something about his male privilege from the experience. Mind you, it could have been a spoof account. It’s hard to tell these days.
- David
July 29, 2016 at 1:13 pm -
Big money always attracts people. Even being on television can make someone rich beyond their wildest dreams. Proving a crime that happened 40 years ago should be very difficult though.
I don’t understand why the information about the rooms Danny had claimed to be in, but didn’t exist at the time, was not used in court at the first trial? And that the pool table he claimed to have been raped on, wasn’t bought until years later? Who’s job is it to investigate these things, the police, or the defence barrister?
- Henry Wood
July 30, 2016 at 2:43 am -
David:
The Police “service” in Britain now commonly state as a matter of fact:
“If you think you have *ever* been subjected to a sexual assault – come forward. We will believe you.”
A long time ago, in a far off distant Britain, a Police *Force*, when approached in a Police Station by a victim of a crime, would ask the alleged victim, “Can you tell me what happened, then?”
Depending on what the victim might say, the Copper on the desk would then reflect on just what he had heard. If he could not quite decide for himself (most unusual!) he would likely say, “Hang on a minute, would you please?” and he would then kind of shuffle over to the back of the “front desk” and ask, “Sarge, what do you make of this?”
Depending on the Sarge’s answer, the complainant would either be invited in for a cup of tea and asked many more relevant questions to their original complaint. *OR* it would sound *very* serious and a member of the CID would be immediately called out.
Either way, neither the local Sergeant nor the acting CID Officer would appear on television within the next few hours inviting possibly more spurious allegators who might now hear of these allegations to now come forth and multiply.
(Probably because they knew they would never, ever have enough cups to supply all the chancers who would definitely appear once such an appeal had been made.)
- Henry Wood
- suffolkgirl
July 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm -
Blimey. You really couldn’t make it up. Do we know whether Danny is going to be held to account over his false allegations?
Super witty blog post btw. - Don Cox
July 29, 2016 at 1:52 pm -
Perhaps this character should be in a secure mental hospital.
- windsock
July 29, 2016 at 2:06 pm -
I started reading this and thought it might be one of your more whimsical stories, or perhaps meander into one of those “this is a bloody charity!!!???” pieces… but no.
The world is full of scumbags and bastards and their victims. I am in no way berating you for bringing this to our attention – but doesn’t it tire you to see this endless parade of injustices and people who can barely be called human across your horizon? Because I really wish this had ended up as one of your “HAnns Raccoon Anderson” tales (but then again, maybe it has…)
- Fat Steve
July 29, 2016 at 2:20 pm -
Gotta say Anna with only a slightly more responsible MSM Danny would probably never have taxied down the runway let alone have taken to the air.
As to the Police and CPS in this case one wonders if they haven’t abandoned any idea of responsibility.
But I think everyone nowadays is so worried about earning a crust and keeping their job that its about complying with targets/deadlines/ other managerial objectives and no one who questions the ‘product’ that comes out……junk news reporting, work actually done for legal costs or prosecutions launched.
Once the managers take full charge of any profession or vocation its a matter of feeding the beast as it demands- Henry Wood
July 30, 2016 at 2:50 am -
“[…] its about complying with targets/deadlines/ other managerial objectives … […]
Nail right on head!
- Henry Wood
- Graham King
July 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm -
A word, if I may, on behalf of “defence lawyers.” Precisely ZERO funding is provided to an accused individual, for the purpose of investigation. Defence solicitors have no resources to go looking for evidence to support their client’s assertions – and all too often, clients do not appreciate the likelihood that they will be convicted on the word of the complainant alone. They KNOW s/he is a liar – and they expect the same to be apparent to the jury — but all too often it is not. Last year I defended a man of nearly 80, alleged to have assaulted young girls 40-50 years ago. It fell to me as the trial approached, to make the phone calls that established that his dental records had been destroyed; DVLA did not keep records from those years; his then employer had no records of his working hours from the 1970s; even the dates of his parents’ death, and their disabilities. All were potentially relevant. There were many other areas ripe for investigation: therapy undertaken by one complainant; the layout of another relevant house; who had or had not attended a family wedding. His solicitors I know to be hard working (desperately overworked and under-paid, in fact!) – but they had done none of this; he, approaching 80 and a sick man now, could hardly be expected to shoulder the task; a few phone calls were all I could manage. David Bryant’s wife is HUGELY to be commended for the doggedness oof her cmpaign to clear her husband’s name. I would not like to count the hours she must have put in; the travelling, the calls, the letters. Legal aid solicitors are not equipped or remunerated for that sort of effort, which is essential to mount a proper defence in a historic case. So please, let us think a little less judgmentally of those who represented Mr. Bryant first time round (and btw, it definitely wasn’t me!)
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 29, 2016 at 6:34 pm -
Apparently the nearest Byron’s is 44.3 miles from me. Bugger! I was thinking of taking a stand and boycotting this week’s “Boycott To Show I Really Really REALLY CARE”. Oh well, my socio-political conscience will have to make do with a Mc Donald’s Palm Oil Special fried Ozone depleting burger….even if they don’t put enough salt on their fries any more, although any eatery that thinks children will want to buy a bag of carrot stix deserves to go bust….and what sort of parent says ‘if you have a burger then you must have carrot stix in your U-Vill-Be-HAPPY Meal’ ?
- Cascadian
July 29, 2016 at 7:04 pm -
Let me first thank Matthew Scott-BarristerBlogger, for succinctly describing this case, and recognize that there are still people within the legal system that believe in justice and are willing to work for no compensation to ensure that justice is done, step forward Rupert Butler, Peter Knox QC and Rachael Earle, all of 3 Hare Court, and of course the landlady without whom I would never venture to a site called BarristerBlogger. While the landlady may well be sloshing around in the sewers of society this is ultimately an uplifting item.
As Fat Steve has already stated, the fault for Mr Bryant’s incarceration seems to sit entirely with the woeful plod and CPS- “the case raises deeply uncomfortable questions for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Looking at a complainant’s medical records ought to be absolutely fundamental in any investigation of a historic sex allegation. It is almost inconceivable that it was not done, yet, it seems the fact that Mr Day was being treated for a whole decade for what the Court of Appeal described as “chronic lying” did not feature in any way at the trial.”
Eventually somebody in the hierarchy of the “justice” system will surely require the CPS and senior plod to explain why #webelieveyou has more weight in deciding the outcome of a trial than boring basic investigative work like looking into medical records of accusers of “violent rape”.
- tdf
July 29, 2016 at 7:20 pm -
” Looking at a complainant’s medical records ought to be absolutely fundamental in any investigation of a historic sex allegation. ”
I can’t agree with that. It raises the spectre of plaintiffs being cross-examined in minute detail on their medical histories, and potentially being reduced to shivering wrecks in genuine cases.
I think the main issues are are as follows:
(1) Statute of limitations – in CSA cases, except the most serious ones, in my view should be reviewed
(2) Anonymity could possibly could be looked at
(3) Most importantly, in my view, and Graham King alludes to this in his post – in CSA cases, the ability to convict on the basis of a complainant’s oral testimony alone, with no corroborating evidence.
On point (3) , and purely because it’s fresh in the mind, a recent financial fraud case concluded in Ireland – it was in fact the lengthiest criminal trial ever held in that jurisdiction. 3 out of 4 defendants were convicted, so a success for the prosecution – but at substantial cost to the taxpayer. I have not seen anything online detailing the number of prosecution witnesses, but I’d be willing to bet, given the length of the case, and the complexity of the issues examined, that they were plentiful. I think that if the state had produced just one witness, and demanded that the court convict the defendants just on the basis of that witness’s statement, the judge would (rightly) have laughed the case out of court, and not even let it go to the jury.
- Cascadian
July 29, 2016 at 10:11 pm -
Then you can increasingly expect chronic liars to continue to make false claims for compensation against innocent people and public services. #webelieveyou is a lifelong meal ticket for some.
The comment was made in the context not of revealing lurid information, but of determining the claimant’s credibility, and nobody was suggesting a cross-examination of the claimants.
- Sean Coleman
July 30, 2016 at 7:27 pm -
I think the medical records should be made available or at least steps should be taken to make it harder for plaintiffs in these cases because it seems they can do what they want.
I made a long car journey yesterday and heard a lot about the case you mention on the radio, albeit repeating the same basic analysis over and over. I was disgusted how this case against senior bank officials was allowed to drag on for so long when the events happened eight years ago. To get two or three years prison after all this long, p’utting your life on hold, is not right and the judge’s moralizing makes me worry that the men are scapegoats.
Sorry about the typos, I’m using a tablet.
- Don Cox
July 31, 2016 at 12:25 pm -
The medical records would reveal whether the person had previously made claims for whiplash or industrial deafness.
It should also be possible to find out whether they have made other claims, for example on insurance. A history of regular claims would be of interest.
- tdf
July 31, 2016 at 1:46 pm -
^ “I was disgusted how this case against senior bank officials was allowed to drag on for so long when the events happened eight years ago. To get two or three years prison after all this long, p’utting your life on hold, is not right and the judge’s moralizing makes me worry that the men are scapegoats.”
I’m inclined to agree with you on that. Idiots on social media are complaining about how light the sentences were for ‘stealing €8bn.’ In fact, no money whatever, not even 8c, was stolen. The cases was not about theft. It is frightening to me that people so stupid, in theory, can serve on juries.
- Don Cox
- Cascadian
- ILovetheBBC
July 29, 2016 at 8:43 pm -
The medical version of this is of course (allegedly) Normal for Norfolk, abbreviated to NFN and added to medical notes to explain otherwise inexplicable symptoms or behaviour.
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 30, 2016 at 12:04 am -
It raises the spectre of plaintiffs being cross-examined in minute detail on their medical histories, and potentially being reduced to shivering wrecks in genuine cases.
Unfortunately that is the price, one of the many, that any genuine abuse victim should be expected to ‘pay’ to see justice done. Just the accusation of a sex offence will, almost undoubtedly, ‘ruin’ the life of the Accused, so before charges are even brought the Accuser must be prepared to undergo the 3rd degree as to their personal grip on reality, especially in historical cases where the Accused can be convicted on the testimony of Accuser alone.
Yes it sucks but until medical science comes up with a Truth Serum that works 100% of the time on 100% of people…
It is doubly unfair on those genuine victims with a history of mental ill health as that ill health may well result from the abuse received at the hands of the Accused.
However no worries, no barrister these days will risk any cross examination beyond whether the VICTIM would prefer a cup of Earl Grey or a cup of Darjeeling with their digestive to help steady them during their courtroom ‘ordeal’….at least that’s the impression I get.- The Blocked Dwarf
July 30, 2016 at 12:48 pm -
and it seems from the Daily Mail account my impression is correct: “At one point, she remembers Danny refused to be questioned further by David’s barrister because — as a traumatised ‘victim’ — he felt unfairly under attack”. Why wasn’t he charged there and then with Contempt?!?!
- The Blocked Dwarf
- john malpas
July 30, 2016 at 2:23 am -
Soon anyone over seventy five or so can expect an accusation of historical abuse
– (solely on the grounds that at least some of them with have property and cash.).
A quick drive by their address could help to assess how much could be extracted from them.- A Potted Plant
July 30, 2016 at 2:38 am -
I think it was a year ago, or more, that I suggested retired persons – particularly retired celebrities – ought to flee the UK until “these matters” get sorted out. And take ALL your assets with you, natch…
Spain still seems good. Bulgaria would be inexpensive, and pretty safe (not on the terrorist radar). Canada is…expensive. Other suggestions?
- A Potted Plant
- windsock
July 30, 2016 at 8:09 am -
“False allegations don’t just affect one member of the family – an expendable ‘male’, to the feminists. They affect the entire family; wife, and if there are children under 16, those children being taken into care.”
On cue:
- cameron mcarthur
July 30, 2016 at 8:25 am -
i must say i find this state of affairs in our arrest and incarcerate industry depressing. 2 upsides however…limited police firepower and no capital punishment.
- Mrs Grimble
July 30, 2016 at 10:06 am -
Dammit Anna, I was in the middle of writing this very blog post – stop creeping up and watching over my shoulder!
Seriously though, I’m pleased that others are on to this guy as well. Maybe we should all get together and form some sort of investigative blogger team? - David
July 30, 2016 at 11:49 am -
My link of the day, Duncroft approved school yesterday http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/care-home-abuse-shames-says-8524126
- David
July 30, 2016 at 2:12 pm -
When I stay in Norfolk, the crime I hear most about is theft of Turkeys, from Poultry farms, and I often come across Squaddies, lost, while on training exercises in Thetford Forrest.
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 30, 2016 at 3:17 pm -
Theft of turkeys?! THEFT?! Trust me Bor, round these parts it isn’t thieving they do with or rather ‘to’ turkeys…
Joking aside, the videos of the abuse of turkeys in the factories round here nearly turned my stomach…and turkeys are only just below Pheasant on my personal list of ‘Species that deserve to go extinct’.
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Sean Coleman
July 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm -
I have known a few such fantasists in my time, and my life has been sheltered. People who tell the truth only half the time and you don’t know which half you are getting. I know a couple of these very well indeed. They are not mentally ill, it’s just you can never believe a word they say about anything. This does not apply to the two fantasists who have ruined my two fave blogs (until this one) by pretending to be a multitude – I am sure they are mad. They are all extroverts though prominent women liars in recent high profile cases seem to be introverts but their motives appear to be more malicious. The fantasist is usually innocent in a way (while still being a potentially dangerous and vindictive lying bastard). Am I unique in being able to spot them? The thing about fantasists is that while they lie easily they are very bad at it despite their years of practice. The trick is to take something they say, it can be random and as insignificant as you like. Then check it out. That will usually do the trick. Another thing is that while they can often con educated people (especially where there is what Webster calls ‘noble cause corruption’) they are also easily taken in by their own kind.
The troll on my economics blog is an admirer of Chris Spivey. The fruitcake on my other one is more skilful and very plausible. Like the other one he provides more than 90 per cent of total content. But he still makes mistakes and that is how I ran him to ground. The next bit is interesting. When I’d evade the blog ‘community’ moderators and landed a flats challenge to one of his creations, another whom I had never suspected would step forward to vouch for his authenticity! Another was very plausible and used to sympathise with my attempts to unmask the deceit. He wondered, he wrote once, if we were the only two genuine contributors. He was a puppet too.
So you tip off the journalist or whoever the blog belongs to, and anyone else who might be reading, and they still don’t really see it. They still get fooled or wound up. I’d be surprised if there isn’t one hanging around this blog as well, itching to get in on the action.
(It isn’t me.)
- Sean Coleman
July 30, 2016 at 9:03 pm -
I just read the Barrister Blogger’s excellent piece but I don’t agree with his assertion that it is impossible for juries and judges to tell if someone is lying. If the claim is, say, Jimmy Savile committed all this ‘abuse’ in plain sight, then (as he has so eloquently reasoned in earlier articles) this is obviously nonsense because it is so, well, obviously nonsense. Anyone able to fend for himself outside a care or nursing home should be able to see it. And if hundreds of people make unbelievable claims then it should not matter because there are surely tens of thousands of fantasist and liars out there and what liars and fantasist do is to lie and fantasize. I really don’t see the problem. If an allegation appears to be far fetched then it is most likely a lie. How could a jury have convicted Mr Bryant? What on earth did they think they were doing? I was reading the judgement in the case of Prof Walker Smith (close colleague of Dr Andrew Wakefield) yesterday, finding in his favour in his appeal against getting struck off by the General Medical Council. And I asked myself the same question: how on earth could they have reached this decision? Mass delusion. The only time their reasoning had regard to the expert evidence led for WS was to misstate it. If they had stood back and asked themselves if it was remotely possible that a distinguished surgeon of WS’s standing would be capable of gross misconduct.
- Jonathan King
July 31, 2016 at 6:39 am -
One of your best Anna. I’m thinking of starting a Raccoon sanctuary; please send cash. Incidentally, being one of the few lucky enough to see your artwork, I’m impressed by your painting but strongly suggest that articles like this are just as artistically credible. Am I alone, though, in wondering where the decent journalists have gone? This kind of research, now taking you a mere two hours, used to be an essential talent needed amongst those penning national newspapers. Where, oh where, have they gone? Farming porkies I suspect. I shall be astonished and horrified if you don’t get a call from the Mail requesting permission to carry your piece as is.
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 31, 2016 at 9:19 am -
I’m impressed by your painting
I seem to recall AR once recounting how she had designed mugs that then sold well? Or maybe I’m getting confused in my dotage. But if it was her then it would indicate that she has some artisticals under that fur somewhere. She really is a bit of a Renaiss-accoon.
- The Blocked Dwarf
- A Potted Plant
July 31, 2016 at 12:20 pm -
I remember a comment thread, following some article on this blog which I cannot locate now, in which several ‘comment-tators’ dug up and analyzed many of the current UK sex crimes statutes, regulations, guidelines and advisories that are publicly accessible. I can’t recall if this exact wording was used in any of them, but certainly this sentiment seemed to pervade them: “investigate the complaint, not the complainant”. My impression was that UK sex crimes investigators are not encouraged to look into the personal history/background of complainants, and perhaps are actually discouraged from making such inquiries.
I’ve just been looking at some documents on UK College of Policing site, the “guidelines for investigation and prosecution” of various offences:
http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/rape-and-sexual-offences/I couldn’t find any mention at all, in the guidelines for sexual violence offences, about procedures for screening out false complaints. It seems like the whole concept of false sex crime allegations may have been intentionally excluded from these documents…perhaps from a belief that any acknowledgement of false allegations would discourage some persons from reporting their victimization – ?
The guidelines for investigation of rape, for an example, list a number of “priorities for Police Service and CPS in responding to rape offences” – most of which are unquestionably laudable, but two of which could be problematic; “increase confidence in the criminal justice system and encourage more victims to report rape to police” and “increase the proportion of cases which result in a charge, court cases and conviction”.
If Police Services and CPS have “more reports of rape to police” and more of those reports resulting in charges, court cases and convictions, EVERY YEAR, as a goal – wouldn’t that make it in their interests, to avoid any inquiries which might uncover information indicating that the complainant or their allegations was less than 110% truthful, accurate and credible?- Don Cox
July 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm -
The medical records would reveal whether the person had previously made claims for whiplash or industrial deafness.
It should also be possible to find out whether they have made other claims, for example on insurance. A history of regular claims would be of interest.
- Don Cox
- Dorset Badger
July 31, 2016 at 4:34 pm -
An excellent well researched piece Anna. I followed the original trial and subsequent appeals very closely and you’ve identified all the salient points apart from one. Danny Day has been engaged in the past as a Paid Police informant. It’s obviously not in the public domain which cases he has been involved with prior to the malicious and false allegations against David Bryant, however it throws serious doubts over any information of previous allegations he has made to any Police force and how they have then used that information for investigations leading to prosecutions. Dorset Police and the Dorset PCC Martyn Underhill are not exactly falling over themselves to admit any liability for the incompetent investigations carried out by Dorset Police before the initial trial, perhaps they don’t want the full picture of their incompetence and collusion with Day to become public and open them up to formal investigation from a higher authority.
- Peb
July 31, 2016 at 10:21 pm -
“Danny Day has been engaged in the past as a Paid Police informant. ”
That is an interesting development! certainly which cases and roles have not been disclosed, but can this be extracted by a judge or a FOI request? Because if it can then a big pile of excrement has just got a whole lot bigger, and several lawyers should be straining at the leash
- Peb
- A Potted Plant
August 1, 2016 at 12:12 pm -
@Anna – acknowledging that I first heard about Greville Janner’s original complainant being a convicted sex offender, right here, from you.
This report about the original complainant against Grevill Janner, called “Tony” by The Mail, is enlightening and shocking:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716348/Janner-s-family-warn-child-sex-inquiry-flawed-s-revealed-star-witness-probe-lied-abuse-care-home-boss.htmlThe revelations about “Tony’s” history are quite damning. The fact of his conviction for sex offences against multiple boys, in 2001, destroys earlier portrayals of Tony as a “decent family man” of good character, but may be less damaging to him as a complainant than other revelations. It could be argued, (and perhaps it may yet be), that pederastic offences by Tony actually support his complaint against Janner, if he claims them to be a “learned behaviour” for which Janner was his mentor (so to speak). And he wasn’t a convicted pederastic offender in 1991 when he made his complaint, so it could be problematic to argue that Tony’s textbook-perfect portrayal of Janner’s alleged “grooming” behaviours in his original complaint were actually based on Tony’s own experiences as a pederastic offender. (But they still could be, of course).
It is the fact of Tony’s simultaneous false allegation, of having been molested by a woman who ran the home he lived in before moving to Beck’s facility, that strikes me as the most damaging. Mrs Fitt is alleged to have suggested, that this false allegation could have been a vengeance for her documenting Tony’s molestation of a six year old girl at her home. This retaliatory false allegation scenario seems plausible and suggests a similarly plausible scenario as Tony’s true motivation for the complaint against Janner.
Nevertheless, Janner’s relationship with teenaged Tony seems remarkably poor judgement on Janner’s part – especially having the boy stay at his home and the sharing of hotel rooms. WTF could you have been thinking, Greville? And there remains the suspiciously selective nature of Janner’s relationship with Tony. If “mentoring” disadvantaged boys from care homes was a long-standing committment of ‘service’ to the community, why haven’t other men with positive memories of such relationships with Janner spoken out in his defence? But we only know of one such relationship, the one with Tony. So, why THAT boy and no others? The Mail report contains some information that, unfortunately for Janner & family, suggests a behavioural trait that could have caught Janner’s eye and made the boy “stand out” from others that Janner has encountered: “Tony had a history of ‘highly sexualised’ inappropriate behaviour in care before he met Janner…”
- David
August 1, 2016 at 12:21 pm -
Had it occurred to you that others relating to this, and possibly other investigations, may not have ‘come forward’, because they died of AIDS ?
- windsock
August 1, 2016 at 1:27 pm -
Because all men carry HIV? Jesus David, you do your reputation no favours. Shall we ask for a FOI request to see how many convicted child sex offenders carry HIV and if there are any records of transmission to their recorded victims? I would suggest (from experience) most AIDS transmissions are between adults; and it may be because a large number (a majority?) of child sex offenders commit offences because they cannot form the relationships they want with adults.
- David
August 2, 2016 at 9:18 am -
I was thinking of much later, many years later. ‘Nick’ was referring to the early 1980’s, when he said boys were being taken to houses in London, including Dolphin Square. That was also the start of the 1980 s-aids-crisis, many may not have survived into the 1990’s if they had succumbed to prostitution, drink, drugs etc.
- David
- windsock
- windsock
August 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm -
APP… do you realise how much effort it takes to mentor one young person? I used to spend one Saturday (all day) every week with just one adolescent for about four years. Weekdays I had other commitments (as would have Greville Janner – being an MP and all). The child I mentored could be threatening, childish, disruptive, rude, challenging, pushing boundaries and buttons. He could also be charming, funny, perceptive, intelligently provocative and good company. Do you realise the mental and emotional energy it takes to be able to switch betwern all those states, sometimes in just one day, and to remain responsible, supportive, authoritative, amenable and most of all caring? (Like any parent I suppose, but I never had that experience.)
I did mentor other children before and after, but this one was way out there. If he had been my first, I think he may also have been my last (as in, I’m out of here, I don’t need this crap in my life). Maybe Greville Janner had a similar experience. I don’t see how you can draw any conclusions at all from noting he mentored only one child.
Also I would note that as a mentor, I did not choose any of the relationships – the child and I were “matched” by the charity for whom I volunteered. Again, this could have applied to Greville Janner.
- A Potted Plant
August 1, 2016 at 7:37 pm -
@windsock – yes, actually. I do understand.
The two children that I helped care for and raise were quite ‘damaged’ and troubled, as a result of the tragedies they had experienced before coming to live with me. “Difficult child” doesn’t begin to describe the challenges that caring for them entailed. I dedicated my life to their well-being over 30 years ago, and although I’m not their father in any legal sense I’m still the Dad in their lives.- windsock
August 2, 2016 at 7:03 am -
Then you have my admiration, and maybe that is what Greville Janner deserves too? We will never know the objective truth of that relationship. I think he should be left to rest in peace (and his family should also be left alone), as should others who are unable to answer from beyond the grave.
- A Potted Plant
August 3, 2016 at 1:11 pm -
You have a valid point.
*Respect* - David
August 3, 2016 at 1:21 pm -
‘as should others who are unable to answer from beyond the grave’. Do you mean people like Adolf Hitler, never convicted of any crime?
- windsock
August 3, 2016 at 3:04 pm -
Please. Don’t be a wanker just for the sake of it. I’m not in the bloody mood.
- windsock
- A Potted Plant
- windsock
- A Potted Plant
- David
- Alexander Baron
August 1, 2016 at 2:03 pm -
The bad news for Simple Simon is that his latest conquest has sold her story to the tabloids:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sexting-mp-simon-danczuk-spanked-8537386
The good news is that she could have waited 20 years and accused him of rape.
- David
August 2, 2016 at 9:23 am -
Why did Mrs Thatcher decide to ‘out’ Anthony Blunt on 16th November 1979, ten days after Martin Allen went missing? Was it to push the Martin Allen case off the news, and off the front pages? Anthony had confessed to the authorities in 1964 but under a secret deal was granted immunity from prosecution.
- David
August 2, 2016 at 9:42 am -
Andrew Boyle published his book, The Climate of Treason on 5th November 1979. He worked for the BBC in the 1960s.
- tdf
August 3, 2016 at 2:11 pm -
I see no particular reason to connect those two events apart from that they occured in the same year.
- David
- Alexander Baron
August 3, 2016 at 4:23 am -
Fans of Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby might like to watch this video. Janner’s daughter has obviously done her homework and refers here to the bandwagon effect.
Janner did a lot for kids; there was one case in which he was photographed with a boy who had no legs; he’d taken up his case through Parliament.
I think though there is little doubt that he had one “inappropriate” relationship, the one documented. As with Cosby, Rolf and the other victims of these insane witch-hunts, all the others are either delusional or simply lying. As she says, what do they have to lose?
- A Potted Plant
August 3, 2016 at 1:10 pm -
EXCELLENT! Thank you.
This is what has been missing & needed – the testimony of Janner’s own family members. I’ve said this before…if they contradict “Tony’s” accounts, then his allegations become invalidated.
- A Potted Plant
- tdf
August 3, 2016 at 2:13 pm -
@APP No, sorry, I don’t accept that.
We are told constantly on this blog to ‘follow the money’. Don’t you think Janner’s family might have a vested interest (other than the ties of family) in furiously denying the allegations?
- windsock
August 3, 2016 at 3:03 pm -
Or maybe they know more than your suspicious mind will accept.
- A Potted Plant
August 4, 2016 at 5:34 am -
With regard to “Tony’s” allegations, family members vested interests will be irrelevant. They would be the most direct, and informed, witnesses to what was going on in their home, in their family, and in their father’s life at that time that there could possibly be. As direct and involved witnesses as Tony himself, but a lot more credible as witnesses because they don’t have convictions for sex crimes against minors – and Tony does. And the topper will be their access to various objective records, aka factual evidence or proof, regarding their father’s whereabouts and activities during that time.
- windsock
- tdf
August 3, 2016 at 3:12 pm -
^ You’ve already clearly made yours up.
- windsock
August 3, 2016 at 3:43 pm -
Yes, I have. Seems like you have to.
I believe a decent man tried his best to help a damaged child, but maybe did not observe the boundaries that I was certainly trained to when mentoring. Different says, eh? But just because some boundaries may have been crossed, I don’t see that there is any proof that all boundaries were. I think some people see a chance to go after some moolah because there is no-one to gainsay them. Who is following the money, eh?
Good for Marion Janner for speaking up. It can’t have been easy for her.
- windsock
- tdf
August 3, 2016 at 3:54 pm -
“I think some people see a chance to go after some moolah because there is no-one to gainsay them.”
That’s certainly possible.
“Good for Marion Janner for speaking up. It can’t have been easy for her.”
I found it quite disturbing, and frequently objected to, the manner in which certain social media accounts were bringing his family into it even when he was still alive. I have a nuanced view on this, can’t say I’ve made up mind mind (or if I ever will).
{ 77 comments… read them below or add one }