No, no, it’s OK, we don’t have to believe this one

A rape accuser has been charged with perverting the course of justice over allegations of historical abuse that led to the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of a firefighter.

Danny Day will appear in court by video link on Friday over claims that he was raped at a fire station in Dorset in the Seventies when he was 14.

Police launched an investigation that resulted in Dave Bryant, a respected fire chief with an unblemished record, being convicted and subsequently jailed for six years in 2014.

Mr Bryant, now aged 69, from Christchurch, was freed two years later after the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.

The mantra of always believe the victim only applies to wimmins victims, obviously.

So this is fine, a bloke being wrong, well, doesn’t change anything else does it? She says it, it happened, right?

28 thoughts on “No, no, it’s OK, we don’t have to believe this one”

  1. How on earth did this poor guy get convicted in the first place? A travesty. What with the supreme court finding new ways every day to keep violent foreigners on our soil, it feels as if the legal system is not just failing to act in citizens’ interests, but actively campaigning against them.

  2. “…it feels as if the legal system is not just failing to act in citizens’ interests, but actively campaigning against them.”

    Very often, I agree. As I wrote here the other day, the British state now exists primarily to administer punishment beatings to the better part of the population.

  3. @MC: “How on earth did this poor guy get convicted in the first place?”

    By a jury. Shouldn’t they be on the hook for the compo, or even just some of it?

  4. ” The mantra of always believe the victim only applies to wimmins victims, obviously.”

    And the politics of the accused. See Joe Biden.

  5. Julia, as a practical matter, how would you make that work? I mean, unless a jury or some of its members can be shown to have acted in bad faith, if a jury or some of its members get it wrong and are to be sued as a result, you’re looking at the collapse of the jury system. Certainly, it’s a system I support.

    I suppose one way around the problem would be to buy after-the-fact insurance if you’re called up for jury service, but that would raise all kinds of contingent problems. For a start, not only would it be massively expensive but, secondarily, you’d find a new line of work opens up for other lawyers instructed by insurers defending against claims for getting a jury decision wrong.

    And remember, it’s not as if jurors put themselves forward for the role in the first place …

  6. It strikes me two years in jail for child rape would be rather worse than two years inside for tax evasion, non payment of the BBC licence tax or robbery.

    Jesus he’s lucky to be alive.

  7. ‘By a jury. Shouldn’t they be on the hook for the compo, or even just some of it?‘

    Jurors considered the evidence placed before them in Court, they are not responsible for it.

    If it is tainted, if prosecution withholds evidence which would undermine their case, if witnesses tell lies, or if the defence does a poor job, how can jurors be held liable for that? But anyway, it is not a perfect system: no system is.

    As for ‘compo’, the Courts operate on behalf of the People who are on the hook for that ‘compo’ and wrongly convicted citizens are awarded compensation out of public funds. We all pay.

  8. The alleged kiddie fiddler had his conviction overturned in 2016 – why has it taken four years to get his accuser in court?! Justice delayed is justice denied.

  9. He was convicted in 2014 for an alledged offence in the seventies? Forty years previously?

    As with the grannies claiming to have been felt up in dressing rooms in the same era, this is not criminal justice, this is an inquisition.

  10. Jack the dog said:
    “It strikes me two years in jail for child rape would be rather worse than two years inside for tax evasion, non payment of the BBC licence tax or robbery.”

    Is that still the case, or have even the criminals lost their faith in the courts over historic sex allegations?

  11. @AndrewM: from that blog “There was plenty of extraneous detail which made his account believable.”

    All of which, like the 40 book liar in the other post, was invented. What, specifically, makes that embellishment suddenly believable?

  12. Well, if he is jailed, Danny may find that the fictional events of over forty years ago become a reality today.

  13. JulieM: Bushell’s Case ruled that a jury cannot be held liable or be punished for the decisions it comes to. As Lud pointed out, it would destroy the entire jury system if they were.

  14. “As I wrote here the other day, the British state now exists primarily to administer punishment beatings to the better part of the population.”

    And the difference with most of british history is?…..

  15. Over 20 years as a front line Police officer has shown me that that there is very little connection between the legal system and justice.

  16. Nice try, Grikath.

    I prefer AJP Taylor: up until about 100 years ago, the closest most got to the State was the local post office. If I really wanted to be contrarian, I would pre-date it by about 100 years to the then government’s failure to repeal income tax (need, temporarily, you’ll recall, to defeat Boney).

    Until comparatively recently, whatever the Puritan instincts of our overlords, they simply did not have the infrastructure to do to us what they now do whilst Steve Baker chokes back his tears.

    I’m with Rockwell. All governments are protection rackets. To a small extent there can even be some merit to that.

    But we are now in a situawashun where we’re forbidden from working, but our liabilities to the mafia remain, for the mafia and its bottom feeders further down the food chain continue to expect their cakes and ale.

    I mean, even the Sicilians didn’t try that.

  17. I’ve always thought justice was the process, Penseivat, not the outcome (it is of course nice if the outcome is the right one).

  18. @Edward Lud

    Umm I think there’s a number of Australians and US-ians wanting to have a wee little chat with you…

    The difference with a century+ ago is that “the State” can’t hang or Ship Out the Troublemakers anymore, so the Powers that Be are limited to their own back yard.

  19. Mr Lud–If TPTB wanted to make the population blaze with anger they couldn’t have designed a better plan.

    No-I agree it doesn’t look like that quite yet–the chorus of anger is growing louder daily but so far the “Satan Bug-gers” and “Omega men” are still in the majority and still in the grip of terror. But every day is shifting that. Sunaknackered’s funny money isn’t saving economy but it is still cushioning and keeping back the blows like an armful of Heroin.

    Like all drugs the supply and the effect will end. Then the whistle will go for kick off.

    Course–pent-up demand could save us I suppose.

    Don’t hold your breath.

  20. Grikath, I think Mark Steyn (PBUH, except in his current hyperventilating COVID mode) has the best response to that: a propos the latest outrage visited on Muricans he says, “George III wouldn’t have done this to you”.

    He might be better to argue that George III *couldn’t* have done [whatever it was].

    For, George III could not. He did not have their NI numbers. There were no semi-official codes of conduct by which people might be para-judicially ruined. No licensing, or little of it by today’s standards. No regulations. No BACs, No CHAPS, no debit cards. No cameras. No URLs. No tax returns mainlining individual bank accounts.

    Off-grid was normal. There was no grid.

    But above all, there was little of the dreary, peevish envy drummed-up by the carpet-baggers of the last 120 years or so.

  21. How can a court seriously prosecute a 30 year old rape charge? How can a prosecutor look at that and go ‘yeah, we can make that work’?

  22. Agammamon, UK doesn’t have statute of limitations like U.S.

    A 30 year old rape charge would never be prosecuted here.

  23. Oh, m’Lud. “the then government’s failure to repeal income tax “: but they did repeal it after the Napoleonic Wars. The promise was kept.

  24. Well, kinda, dearieme.

    In the same way you might save my life by removing your foot from my throat. For 45 seconds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *