You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yes and no, no because our legal system doesn’t work that way and every case should be reviewed.
In this case, I don't agree; justice delayed is justice denied.
Moving on from that, the latest 'revelation' is both shocking and completely unsurprising at the same time; it must, surely, increase the chances of criminal prosecutions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68079300
The headline doesn't really hint at the content.
Truly appalling behaviour.
To what extent was that bastion of the british business establishment, tim parker, in his capacity as then chairman involved?
I doubt his hands were clean.
Moving on from that, the latest ‘revelation’ is both shocking and completely unsurprising at the same time; it must, surely, increase the chances of criminal prosecutions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68079300
/blockquote>Indeed, as I said yesterday, surely some senior police and CPS/Procurator Fiscal are now meeting to discuss this from a criminal prosecution position?
Rightly or wrongly, surely ALL the convictions have to be null and void now by default? and ‘lots of’ compensation paid unless there is real evidence of wrong-doing?
The difficulty with that is the precedent it sets for governments to dictate to the courts what to do. We pride ourselves in this country on the independence of the judiciary and parliament and it doesn't sit right with a lot of people in the legal world because: if parliament can direct that all PO convictions are overturned, parliament could direct that all convictions of people COVID offences should be overturned, or all PPE fraud cases, or misconduct in public office cases etc. Or vice versa to force courts to convict people. That said, this is precisely what parliament are proposing doing. It may have been better to fund the appeal courts, legal aid and work with the judiciary to find a way to accelerate and simplify these cases but still leave it to judges to do the actual decision making in each case.
We know the system was flawed, it’s a proven matter of fact…. so that sets a high bar of ambiguity.
I think much of the issue is actually that many people pled guilty. That creates a real mess, and indeed probably contributes to some investigators still believing today that they were guilty. That sort of scenario happens all the time, indeed we see people here getting upset when an accused "negotiates" a guilty plea to careless rather than dangerous driving. Its a bit of a messy bit of process, and when the whole system works well might fall into the evidence given yesterday of "pragmatism" but what it does is increase the risk of pleas of convenience and miscarriages of justice because nobody actually has to look properly at the evidence for a plea.
God knows I’ve left jobs before, when I come across this kind of bollocks… I was lucky enough to be able to walk away rather than relying the job to pay my mortgage or whatever.
Some people can’t afford to walk out of a job, and I don’t really blame them for that. .they may be coerced into towing the company line, and thus, become part of the probelm.
I'm not saying people would have to walk out immediately - but some of these people have been there for 20+ years and despite all the scandals are still there, ten years after anyone in the business must have been aware that something was wrong. How overpaid/unemployable would you need to be to turn a blind eye for a decade or more?
It seems many if not most of the POL investigation teams had worked at POL for all or most of their careers. Walking away from a job that pays well with a good pension is very difficult I would have thought.
You are probably right - there is a mentality in some places (and I image POL HQ could be one of them) that keeping your head down and quietly playing the game is the way to incremental salary increases and an ever increasing defined benefit pension. None of that would stop anonymous whistleblowing or gently questioning management - none of the witnesses so far seems to have suggested they tried to raise a red flag.
Add to that POL have, imo, a high level of excess middle and upper management left over from prior to privatisation.
The PO is not privatised. I know the government would like to give the impression that this is some shonky private company stuff - they are owned by tax payers. IF theres a dodgy culture driven by shareholders thats ministers not private equity firms! Whilst they would like us to perceive PO's as places to buy stamps they are effectively local facilities for transacting with government and thats why its not privatised. Its how lots of people got, and indeed many still do get, their benefits, pensions etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68121257
Kemi Bedenoch sacking post office chair who's only been in place since Dec 2022 looks to me like the gov appearing to do something than actual action.
Kemi wants to be party leader therefore:
- doesn’t want to be tainted by any claims she sat on her hands and did nothing during the scandal
- wants to send a message to the party faithful that she can make big decisions quickly
That said if you’ve had over a year as chairman of the board and you’ve:
- not instigated any significant governance changes
- still seem to have a problem in the organisation with cover up culture and not providing fu disclosure
- still have the same CFO who’s been part of that board for most of the time of the scandal
- still have a CEO who has presided over all the spin and lies since Vennels left, hasn’t instituted significant organisational change or seemingly fixed the culture…
then it’s presumably time for someone who can drive change. Whether Kemi will pick someone good enough to do that, or just a Tory faithful will be interesting to watch!
Private Eye really going for the jugular now when it comes to the cosy threesome between Fujitsu, the Post Office and this government. Doesn't look like they went out of their way to find a Post Office Minister with no links to Fujitsu.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1752826544630722692
Whenever I read a political biography, it's always eyebrow raising how much they all know each other.
I really believe Mr Gilbert. I'm sure he is telling the truth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68253136
I am somewhat confused about his, incorrect, argument the bbc hadnt picked up on it whilst he was in charge.
At the risk of pointing out the bloody obvious he had access to rather more information than them.
I don't know why I'm even surprised any more.
I really believe Mr Gilbert. I’m sure he is telling the truth.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68253136
There's something interesting about old bad people coming out of the woodwork in this inquiry.
Not sure what but I might not look the same at a bus holiday group again, or people in garden centres. Not knowing many oldies, I might have and "old people are nice" blind spot from just knowing grandparents and a few of their friends. Truth is today's 70-80 year olds includes the workplace arseholes of the 1980s-2000s.
Not sure what but I might not look the same at a bus holiday group again, or people in garden centres. Not knowing many oldies, I might have and “old people are nice” blind spot from just knowing grandparents and a few of their friends. Truth is today’s 70-80 year olds includes the workplace arseholes of the 1980s-2000s.
Why would you think the current 70-80 years old are any different to any other age group you might choose to compare with? There are arseholes in every age group. Just because older people are now perhaps more frail and have reduced physical and maybe mental capability doesn't make them nicer, better than younger age groups. And everybody has a history..... good, bad, indifferent.
Looking at an old person now where they might be a bit bent over, walking slowly, unable to lift heavy weights etc doesn't necessarily bear any relationship to how they were when they were younger. I say this as a 76 year old.
Just not something I'd thought of that's all, it didn't surprise me.
seems bonkers if true
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1758984603744739555?t=oeRJ7SeIeds-vrW8gooeDg&s=19
head of the past office says he has messages from government confirming it all
It's front page of the Times today. With full story on page 2.
Cynical mode on: I’m not so sure Kemi is interested in governance changes, as much as someone who can be relied on to downplay the role of the government in the cover-up and delay of the past decade.
Not too far off then. Looks like they picked him to just sit there contemplating retirement and picking up his cheque, then got a bit miffed when he actually started doing the job of a chairman, digging around, and generally being unhappy with the state of the business and the attitude of its only shareholder (HM Government).
It's been patently clear throughout that the government is uninterested in justice and fair compensation for the sub postmasters, why should anyone expect that to change except on a purely superficial level?
And in the Guardian/Observer too.
In their online addition, it’s currently below an article about how HMRC investigations into offshore tax dodging has halved in the past five years.
You’d think that with all the outrage this has rightfully generated, the sensible thing would be to do right by these people
Not Kemi Badanoch though.
The only think that matters to her is her leadership ambitions
Just when you think they can’t sink any lower, they always manage to pull it out of the bag
It's all just been a game.to the government since it came to light around 2012, the situation for all postmasters across the country (not just the convicted) has been used for political wrangling.
It's a tricky watch.
The dishonest head of a crooked organisation vs the dishonest representative of a different crooked organisation.
It's hard to root for either side.
Gov vs Staunton, I assume.
Kemi Badanoch was meant to make a statement to parliament this afternoon regarding her sacking of Post Office chairman Henry Staunton.
In what is now the usual ministerial style, she'll be sending a minion along on her behalf instead
He's claiming they told him to delay payments to postmasters and that he had to 'take the rap' for the delay in payments. She's saying that's a 'pack of lies'
Hmmmmmm... who to believe?
Indeed.
Kemi vs Staunton in 'someone is lying, but you know I'm trustworthy'
I am also astonished in News coverage just how small KemiB is. Is the entire govt made up of possessed action figures who have come to life to wreak evil?
In common with many of her present ministerial peers, she also appears to be as thick as a boxing day turd, yet be staggeringly arrogant and obnoxious with it.
That would explain why the membership all love her. She's a shoe in for the future leader of the party, apparently
It'll be interesting to hear the cooked up work of fiction her minion will be sent off to read to the house this afternoon
she also appears to be as thick as a boxing day turd
par for the course in government to employ someone in a a role for which they have zero experience or expertise (bit of computer programmign and glorified admin assitant at Coutts) - ffs, how can anyone at her level think they know better than a time served Chairman - obnoxious and arrogant is only touching the surface.
if she ever was a shoehorn job for leadership i'd be praying for bojo again..
ffs, how can anyone at her level think they know better than a time served Chairman
Whilst I have no time for her the same could be asked about people daring to challenge a time served CEO like vennells.
Given he was brought in in 2022 I would give him some benefit of the doubt but considering the PO sat around for most of 2023 not a lot even if he is right about being told to sit around.
ffs, how can anyone at her level think they know better than a time served Chairman – obnoxious and arrogant is only touching the surface.
mmm... whilst I've no time for Kemi I'm not sure what the concept of a "time served Chairman" is or why anyone would assume that experienced company Chairmen are anything other that accomplished spin doctors, politicians (with a small p) and liers. Many have come from exactly the same sort of backgrounds as ministers, and just like MPs will have often trod on a few people to get to where they are in life.
playing devils advocate on Vennels, she achieved what she set out to do, which was to make the PO more profitable, the fact she hid a major issue which will have affected the PO's saleability is another matter. Chairmen -yes i too have mixed views having 'reported' to 3 of them, there are some very good ones that get there through a lot of epxerience - others via treading on people and just taking up a salary - the role of which i always find to be an odd one -a mix of experience to hand/guide to the CEO and also the "buffer" between shareholders and the operating board.
In common with many of her present ministerial peers, she also appears to be as thick as a boxing day turd, yet be staggeringly arrogant and obnoxious with it.
You just know she spent most of the weekend screaming down the phone at various hapless civil servants. I know it's hard to use the term 'unministerial' any more, as that ship sailed a while ago, but it must be an absolute nightmare to work with these people, as evidenced by this 'It's my last day!' tweet from someone with the Twitter password.
You just know she spent most of the weekend screaming down the phone at various hapless civil servants.
She also went on the offensive via ranting on Twitter, which is hardly very ministerial either.
Given that her 'I'm coming to the house of commons to provide proof' has now been downgraded to having a junior underling read a statement on her behalf, I'm expecting a lot of vague non-commital platitudes, probably after the lawyers have told her to wind her neck in
The whole Post Office scandal is a spot that Rishi desperately does not want squeezed any more in the run up to an election. Because if the whole truth comes out now, it will do a lot of damage to the government. The sensible thing to do in response to the Times story is to pretty much ignore it, but Kemi is as dumb as a sack of frogs and wants to turn everything into a do or die confrontation.
There comes a point when endlessly doubling down and issuing threats stops making you look powerful, and starts being a total liability.
I imagine someone Tucker-like has told her to STFU.
Hmmmmmmm....
Because if the whole truth comes out now, it will do a lot of damage to the government.
And yet if they had been sensible they could have turned it into a positive since whilst the tories hold a lot of the blame there would be enough to pass on to Labour and the lib dems. So if they had really jumped on it they could have come across as the fixers whilst blaming the others.
There comes a point when endlessly doubling down and issuing threats stops making you look powerful, and starts being a total liability.
Even then it can still work so long as the evidence is in your favour. I assume the rapid reverse ferret is due to someone going "ermmm, ahhhhh, boss I think he has a copy of this memo...."
No-one's backing down, but someone's got to be fibbing.
Who's got the docs to prove it?
I shouldn’t think that we’ll need to wait too long to find the answer to that particular cliffhanger.
The way she came out punching today had a touch of the Johnathan Aitkin about it though.
The Times will probably already have the applicable incriminating documents ready to go on tomorrow’s front page
Looks like Staunton was a meticulous contemporaneous record taker. He went as far as to email these so they would be date-stamped by the PO's internal email system. Which also shows that he was an accurate judge of character of those he was dealing with.
Nothing that Badenoch has come up with so far backs up her claim that he lied out of bitterness at his dismissal. All hot air and bluster.
So she has possibly lied to the House, and defamed Staunton on Twitter. I do hope there are some corroborating documents ready to go.
It could be that someone at the Times has been asked to put a pin in Kemi's obvious leadership ambitions. If she's fallen into what should have been an obvious trap from her position, she has no leadership or political abilities anyway.
The scandal is just getting worse and worse the deeper it's dug into....
BBC News - Cameron government knew Post Office ditched Horizon IT investigation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054
read that with increasing incredulity
the line 'refused to comment while the public inquiry is ongoing ' is piss boiling
he line ‘refused to comment while the public inquiry is ongoing ‘ is piss boiling
And, remarkably, the person who conducted the review is not appearing before that inquiry. Hopefully something that can be fixed.
So much hinges on when PO Ltd and the Government were told that Fujitsu could remotely access these branch Horizon machines, and what they did with that information (Spoiler: They did nothing, just covered it up while Sub Postmasters rotted in prison or killed themselves)
i think it's worse by they actively tried to hide the fact whilst the postmasters started their legal challenge
anyway badenochs BS coming unstuck?
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1759911840518185094?t=qCyIFItHjToAo_CGfMGA8A&s=19
And so the saga goes on and the Post Office not going down without fighting....
In fairness, is that also not what some of the Postmasters want - they are broadly against a blanket overturning because there are some (and I have no idea how many ie whether 369 is a vaguely likely let alone correct number) who were fiddling and if they are let off as well, then the genuinely innocent will always feel still somewhat tarnished (again, so impressed by their own integrity in the face of none from elsewhere)
If some of these convictions did not rely on Horizon evidence, or only partially and there was other evidence that was examined and which results in guilt, should that not be raised?
And yes, fully aware that better that 10 guilty men walk free than one innocent man hangs; also the dichotomy of wanting it sorted properly but also fast because people are struggling and even dying in the meantime (interim payments, possibly? but how you get them back if people are subsequently truly guilty)
I don't know one postoffice within our local group chat that wants blanket over turning of convictions.
It's a political play to try to win the election, trying to make up for government mismanagement of the situation, rather than carry on with proper investigation that's again been delayed and hindered for political gain.
This is also worth a read:
The postoffice counter in our shop would need to sell 300 stamps per hour (for the 53hrs a week we offer postoffice servies) to meet one members of staff minimum wage.
Do you have to run a post office or can you refuse and close it ?
We could refuse and close it, but it's classed as an 'essential service'. In our case that would put our lease at risk and open a tin of worms.
It's also what rural communities value the most from rural shops.
When we took on our shop, two months into running the PO we had a random £650 negative on our cash up in month. We threatened closing the PO as our renumeration was around 250 a month at that point and we were fresh into the business. After days of stress PO relinquished and said it was a bug and wrote it off...
i accept it's what people want... but that doesn't mean it's wise to run one..
The lease context though must obviously change that somewhat.
Yes, our landlord 'could' chuck us out, when you've invested everything into a site that could be an issue.
The PO is cirtainly not a money maker though, it's time consuming, involves lots of staff training, little to no support and high risk. Years ago, when staff were paid a wage by PO it was a different matter.
While legislation to overturn a 'set' of convictions is not ideal, at this stage it's necessary to get justice and recompense in the hands of those who need it most. At one stage the SPMs were probably dying quicker than they were being exonerated. It doesn't excuse the government sitting on its hands, or actively obstructing the process in the years beforehand, and I don't think this will get them off the hook as further evidence emerges.
As for the 'yes, but some of the WERE stealing' argument, it's patently bullshit, and the PO don't get to use it at this stage.
Even if some of the cases were not 100% linked to Horizon evidence, we've heard enough testimony about the methods and approach used by the Post Office Investigations teams (bullying, failure to disclose evidence etc) to know that ANY conviction secured by them in the past couple of decades is suspect and could be challenged on that basis alone. Even those where admissions were secured are suspect, as there is evidence of innocent subpostmasters confessing simply due to the tactics and pressure applied by the investigation teams, just trying to stay out of prison.
If it means some actual thieves 'get away with it', or get compensation to which they are not entitled, so be it. It's the price of running a rotten, shambolic organisation and Nick Read should be utterly ashamed to be employing this as an argument at this point. The corruption and delusion is still embedded in Post Office Ltd culture, they are still employing many of these bullies and liars. They even had to get rid of a new Chairman who came in with the energy to tackle that culture.
As someone who works with POL on a day to day, has worked within my own post office and others for over 10 years, and had direct involvement with POL middle and upper management in my past career @martinhutch some of your comments are valid, others I find not so much.
The Mr Bates media and public outcry has been great and it's cirtainly pushed the current gov into action. But I'm still not convinced this is the correct course, and not just a way of some quick positive public engagement on the issue.
POL's issues are and we're way bigger than the convictions of 900 SPM's. Almost 8.5k postoffices have shut since the introduction of Horizon. The remittance offer for postoffices is so bad - it's the worst £ per sqft in my small shop. The current 11500 that are left are paid 6p per 1st class stamp, RM gets 25p (apparently) so POL pockets 99p.
Every single postoffice in the country would have been effected by the faults of the horizon issues. What happened with the convictions is awful and those effected should get compensation, but the story, social and economic is far larger than just the 900. A blanket squash of convictions is a quick easy way for the government to regain ground and gain public confidence and that's it.
As for the ‘yes, but some of the WERE stealing’ argument, it’s patently bullshit, and the PO don’t get to use it at this stage.
How can it be patently bullshit when it's not exclusively the PO or Gov - it's also (some of) the SPMs that don't want a blanket exoneration. Saying the PO can't use it when the SPMs want it, how do you square that?
Don't forget it's also, as far as I'm aware, the first time parliament will stepping over the legal white lines drawn between governance and this part of our legal system at such a large scale and could open up a can of worms in the future.
How can it be patently bullshit when it’s not exclusively the PO or Gov – it’s also (some of) the SPMs that don’t want a blanket exoneration. Saying the PO can’t use it when the SPMs want it, how do you square that?
Fair. It's now about negating the PR disaster this has been for the PO and HMG, and once again the wishes of those affected are being ignored.
That and issuing a blanket quashing etc is probably cheaper than investigating properly and filtering the guilty from the innocent.
It's a standard play from the big book of shite leadership; in the event of a ****-up, distract with a benevolent overcorrection.
Honestly, they simply are unable to change. The reasons behind Staunton's sacking are becoming crystal clear.
https://twitter.com/stugoo17/status/1761265931290804419
Root and branch reform, a proper mucking out of the organisation is its only chance.
How can it be patently bullshit when it’s not exclusively the PO or Gov – it’s also (some of) the SPMs that don’t want a blanket exoneration. Saying the PO can’t use it when the SPMs want it, how do you square that?
Are they SPMs who have been convicted and are saying 'it's a fair cop'? Can't see a problem with that, but we're talking about a tranche of hundreds of cases, most of whom are maintaining their innocence. Such is the unreliable state of not only the Horizon evidence, but also how the investigations team conducted themselves, how 'admissions' were obtained, and the approach to disclosure that I cannot for the life of me see how you apply a filter to those cases, and determine which ones are innocent and which guilty, without heaping further damage on the lives of a lot of wrongly-convicted people.
Thinking now of Crown Offices rather than Subs I remember when I started as a Postie back in 1982 the counter staff were held in high regard because of the responsibility and the knowledge that was needed and so were paid accordingly.
I think I'm right that the job now pays little if anything over the minimum wage? I can't see it's gotten any easier in terms of what you need to know on a daily basis , another job sold down the river and I probably got paid the same for stacking shelves for the last 3 years before retirement.
The job if anything is more complicated than in 1982 as you need to also sell a verity of insurance and banking facilities.
We worked out that we would need to sell 300 stamps per hour every hour we are open to make minium wage for one member of staff.
I make more selling a 25p Wam bar than I do selling a 1st or 2nd class stamp.
It's shameful isn't it ?
Such is the unreliable state of not only the Horizon evidence, but also how the investigations team conducted themselves, how ‘admissions’ were obtained, and the approach to disclosure that I cannot for the life of me see how you apply a filter to those cases, and determine which ones are innocent and which guilty, without heaping further damage on the lives of a lot of wrongly-convicted people.
Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't be easy. I'm just pointing out that despite that some SPMs are determined that's what they want because even a hint that they might have slipped the net, that there's a tinge of 'maybe' over their guilt/innocence, and they don't accept that.
If it was me - I think I'd be happy with 95 or 99 or whatever % certainty that is to sort this while there's still a chance of piecing something out of my lost best years. But I'm not the one being smeared by this, so can't know how that feels (is Mrs Miggins at #42 still suspicious of me after all this time) and frankly I don't have their integrity, which I still find unbelievable.
These are the sort of issues we'll have as long as we continue to use horizon and a suitable replacement isn't implemented.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/post-office-investigated-sub-postmaster-own-board/
(Sorry if it's behind a pay wall)
If sub postmasters are still enduring suspicion in their communities, all the more reason to get these convictions quashed as soon as possible while the issue is still high profile, rather than in dribs and drabs over the next five years.
There's no perfect way to fix this, that's for sure. We're into 'least worst' territory thanks to the shameless behaviour of PO Ltd and politicians over the past decade.
I guess if the legislation was worded to give individual SPMs a public hearing if they wanted?
My thoughts are clearing all those convicted with the proposed legislation isn't the way to handle this.
Those who are guilty, won't be able to re-charged (except for a fraud charge), and from my understanding will get compensation.
I think the better way to handle it, would be to give the PO the option to present evidence of those convictions that they think are 'safe' and give those convicted the option for some form of re-trial, then clear all those who the PO can't provide evidence for.
The PO have obviously done some research as to what convictions they think are safe, so they should be able to provide that information fairly quickly.
The problem with that is that POL have held and hidden evidence along every step of the way, as we are hearing in the enquiry. Add to that the huge amount of time it'll take, along with further legal fees for both parties.
There's still parts of POL that regard all sub postmasters as the enemy.
"I think the better way to handle it, would be to give the PO the option to present evidence of those convictions that they think are ‘safe’ and give those convicted the option for some form of re-trial, then clear all those who the PO can’t provide evidence for."
How is that going to work? POL have demonstrated that their investigators are inept at best and corrupt/fraudulent at worst. Any evidence from that poisoned department is going to be a gift to any half-awake defence barrister in demonstrating reasonable doubt.
The immorality of persecuting the innocent is far far worse than any potential financial theft, for me they can sorting through the alleged crimes of the postmasters to see if any actually should be retrialled can come after a blanket pardon, and the imprisonment of those guilty of perpetrating this corporate torture of innocent people.
Although I am not confident our legal system recognises the crimes of the "strong and powerful", the corporations, the establishment and the rich against the poor and weak in the same way it does the other way around.
Don't forget that those who receive a pardon, who were wrongly convicted, will never find out why they were convicted in the first place.
There are 11500 post offices still operating with Horizon on a daily basis, the issues still exist, I regularly hear of numerous issues and bugs, none of which will be fixed unless identified which POL seemingly have not got better at doing.
But the issues with POl management go far further than a toxic investigate work force.
My PO is a little different to others, we are effectively a permanently sited mobile office (only one of 9? Or so in the country), as a result we are constantly forgotten about. We like to be a full office, as we've increased trade enough to do so, but POL's contracts don't allow this. A third of our commission goes to a separate office which 'manages' ours, but in reality, delivers stock and that's it.
We've seen an area manager twice in 9 years, both times we contacted them direct for a meeting, they discussed our issues and agreed to sort them only never to be heard of since. It feels like we've had a new area manager covering 100's of offices every 6 months or so. It's taken 7 years to be put on the areas postoffice what's app group, which is helpful as we get a response from other local offices quicker than being connected to the help desk. Even the FB group of offices is better.
We have had zero post office on site training, only 'on screen' which is repetitive and mainly for products we don't have the function to sell. When we bought the office we should have had a trainer for three days (we didn't), I only found this out 4 years later. We can't sell half the products we'd like to.
When I worked as a PM for a supermarket, incharge of new convenience stores, myself and my boss would turn up for a meeting - responsible for the entire job. POL would send 6+ people, the post office PM would write notes down that their superior would direct.
POL's maintenance contracts needed a compete over haul. The safe company used to charge 3 or 4 times our (supermarket) rate to POL for the same job - to the point where I had calls from the POL PM to do things for them as it was cheaper.
POL constantly invested in large chain stores and restricts investment in independents. The difference in help of development between my old job and personal shop is immense.
a few genuinely guilty folks getting let of as a result of this mess is the very least of a long list of tradgedies
I’m a bit confused by this statement? If they were wrongly convicted, it will be because evidence was presented and believed which should not have been (or because they plead guilty in the hope of lower sentences). Even if it goes to the appeal court they almost certainly will be no clearer WHY the PO pursued convictions which were unsound, the inquiry MIGHT get to that but the appeal court just has to conclude that it’s likely there were errors which would have led to a miscarriage of justice.Don’t forget that those who receive a pardon, who were wrongly convicted, will never find out why they were convicted in the first place.
IF there are genuine convictions amongst them it might be that even they would be unsound because of systematic failures in disclosure culture, investigation approach and prosecution procedures.
There were/are numerous bugs that horizon thew up which caused the system to generate false discrepancy's.
Some were simpler to track than others (if the paper trail and digital was kept), double stacking of cash withdrawals for example (cash withdrawal goes through twice rather than once). Frozen screen and repeat hitting the enter key was another cause of multiple transaction logs. Other issues like power cuts and repeat duplications of losses also were reported.
We don't know how many of the 900 or so contented convictions had which bug or which issue with Horizon & the enquiry isn't looking at a case by case. It's identified that there were bugs and that horizon had flaws but not how wide spread or frequent they were.
Many of the wrongly convicted have expressed frustration at not knowing why they were sent to prison, bankruptcy etc. and a blanket quashing of convictions means that they will never know beyond "the computer did it" & pol back the system rather than the people.
As an outsider, I can't see why that would make a difference.
If I was PO staff, which I'm clearly not, I'd take my blanket pardon, and the compensation when it finally arrives secure in the knowledge that I was right all along.
But, I would want to see the real guilty punished. The liars, the perjurers, the smug quasi-religious and the vicious bullies in cheap suits who thought they knew everything and ignored the clear evidence.
Lock them up and you'd have a deal.
a blanket quashing of convictions means that they will never know beyond
My point was, even if they go to the appeal court they won’t know either. The appeals will be based on a technical point of law - like “POL should have disclosed the known issues with the software” not “your specific case resulted from bug 1234 and that is clearly not your fault. If I were a postmaster I can’t see it matters to me whether my bug was 1244 or 7654 - what would matter is why the investigators denied there were ANY issues with the system, why POL prosecutors knew there were matters that should be disclosed and weren’t and why even when the sole shareholder was made aware of systemic faults prosecutions continued. Those are matters for the inquiry. A blanket approach could declare the entire criminal investigation and prosecution approach so fundamentally flawed that no case between certain dates could be regarded as safe. The problem is the PMs would actually like to be told “you are clearly innocent” whereas even the appeal court will only really say a properly informed court could not have been sure of your guilt. There will always be a stigma with being tried and found not guilty (although innocent until proven should mean there is not). A blanket approach could be far clearer!
IF Henry Staunton makes available an unredacted version of the redacted report he was waving about and referring to in his appearance today that will, I think, help to nail the lies/evasion/general dishonesty of the past 2 years.
I think he is credible; Nick Read, the CEO, much less so.
Allen Bates saying the government should see the post office for a quid pissed me off tbh. There absolutely no chance of getting a better deal for SPM's with a private companies as he suggested.
Did anyone watch Panorama last night on Royal Mail delivery failures?
First thing every SPM said when watching was that the journalist had underpaid on every one of the items she sent to test the system.... All should have been large letter rather than standard 1st class - we've all been shocked that any arrived at all....
Channel 4 news have evidence that the post office knew. Well worth a watch
Perverting the course of justice then?
Radio4 were asking the same of a lawyer on PM. His view was there was evidence....
This makes sense as to why the government wanted to roll out compensation as quickly as it could and put the whole thing to bed.
When has a UK government, a tory one at that, ever wanted to speed through compensation for the little people 😕
Roadie 😉
Dusting this off since the next phrase of the inquiry started this week.
The star of the show unsurprisingly came across far better than the "investigators" who previously appeared.
Lord Arbuthnot (who as an mp was an early supporter of the post masters cause) spent a lot of his time answering questions along the lines of "on x date you met the management who when asked about y told you z" with "yes".
Which is going to be awkward for the execs when they get asked to explain that given their emails etc show they knew z was false.
Then a couple of post office executives including Crozier (RM but the line was blurred at the time) which convinced me that they really do deserve all the money they got paid since clearly the job causes some serious mental damage. At least thats the only logical conclusion why they were so forgetful and couldnt explain their emails.