By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
My Gid,the most sickening docu drama I’ve seen in years Toby Jones simply brilliant as the guy instrumental in exposing this national scandal which saw good people made redundant ,homeless and life savings swallowed by a Post Office so inept and arrogant it’s hard to contemplate. People died because of this
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 22:25 - Jan 6 by Whiterockin
Isn't fabricating the evidence, perverting the course of justice?
No, because because there is no specific crime being committed. perverting the course of justice is a substantive offence. Some cops even try to shoehorn perverting the course of justice in to an investigation. they will always be knocked back by the CPS. And there’s no real ‘attempt’ to pervert the course of justice.
perverting the course of justice is a physical act. Like hiding evidence of a physical offence, or harbouring a criminal, making threats to witnesses, the jury or a barrister / judge.
Perjury is easier to prove.
The witness statements provided to the court by the Post Office investigators will have a signed testimony which states what they are saying is true. If they give evidence they will be backing up their statement orally. The actual events of the post office investigation have been submitted by investigators already.
They are very similar offences but that’s the essence.
This post has been edited by an administrator
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 22:41 - Jan 6 by KeithHaynes
No, because because there is no specific crime being committed. perverting the course of justice is a substantive offence. Some cops even try to shoehorn perverting the course of justice in to an investigation. they will always be knocked back by the CPS. And there’s no real ‘attempt’ to pervert the course of justice.
perverting the course of justice is a physical act. Like hiding evidence of a physical offence, or harbouring a criminal, making threats to witnesses, the jury or a barrister / judge.
Perjury is easier to prove.
The witness statements provided to the court by the Post Office investigators will have a signed testimony which states what they are saying is true. If they give evidence they will be backing up their statement orally. The actual events of the post office investigation have been submitted by investigators already.
They are very similar offences but that’s the essence.
This post has been edited by an administrator
Did they not hide evidence by deleting emails and stating that every offence was "a one off" and not systematic. Plus lied to the inquiry.
0
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 00:17 - Jan 7 with 1434 views
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 10:34 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin
OK time will tell. I think with the publicity of the last week things will move along much more quickly now.
Govt have already reacted, please bear in mind that if a substantive offence arises from the investigation, that is an actual offence is being prevented then ‘perverting’ could be an alternative when charging.
Nothing is easy 😂
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
You’ve already admitted you don’t understand the law behind it and tried to blame the police for an investigation they had nothing to do with. So, I’m leaving the thread 🙄
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 10:49 - Jan 7 by KeithHaynes
You’ve already admitted you don’t understand the law behind it and tried to blame the police for an investigation they had nothing to do with. So, I’m leaving the thread 🙄
I didn't blame the police, I questioned
0
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 15:01 - Jan 8 with 1187 views
There are a few questions that Spring to my mind and I'm sure those of others that I feel should be the order of the day for investigators and the police.
1) Which individual or individuals issued the instructions that postmasters enquiring of the help line in regards to losses that enquirers be told that they were the only ones having trouble with Horizon.
2) Surely Post office management even way down the pecking order should have been enquiring themselves as to why there were so many apparent losses?
3). Surely Ed Davey and Co should have asked the very simple question of how many prosecutions had been made over discrepancies in the years 1999 to 2016 compared to the previous 16 years which presumably would have shown a massive increase, an indication that something was very very wrong?
4) It must have been apparent to all that there was a problem why didn't senior Post office managers investigate, the police investigate and government investigate?
After all there were plenty of media articles about what was going on I even expressed my astonishment to the owner of my local shop when he took on a Post office outlet in his shop about 5 years ago. He just shrugged his shoulders when I mentioned the Horizon problems and all the prosecutions and losses that had been well publicised up to that date.
He packed in the Post office bit within 18 months due to the derisory commissions for services paid by the post office and gave the opinion that it was costing him more in staff wages to man the Post office counter the he was getting back, even in any perceptible boost in shop trade.
So why has it taken this programme for the Police to start investigating when myself and presumably others were advising people not to take on a Post office franchise quite some years ago?
Similar question to the government and parliament?
5). Why has the Post office, the very organisation who carried out these misdeeds been allowed any contribution to the appeals procedure?
It said on the news this morning that 54 appeals against conviction had been dismissed. How has this happened given the facts that have emerged?
And who exactly has dismissed these appeals?
6) Also on the news this morning some hapless government schill called Bim something or other was boasting that 2,200 or so people had received compensation already even though those still having convictions weren't eligible and wouldn't have received any.
So if 775 at least received convictions and only 94 or so have had those overturned then where have 2.200 odd people recieving compensation come from?
Surely this would indicate that the numbers are actually far in excess of those already quoted in the programme and other media articles on the subject?
7) Who exactly nominated Paula Vennell for a CBE and who approved it? Shouldn't they be named, their identities publicised and them questioned as to why they thought the awarding of an honour suitable given the already known scandal unfolding at the time?
( I do see that a freedom of information request was put in 3 days ago and acknowledged )
8) Why isn't Fujitsu ponying up the compensation and other damages/ costs etc along with the Post Office?
9) That waste of space Sunak today has been saying that it hasn't taken an ITV programme to spark action into this matter?
Really? I think that it appears to most people that I speak to that of course it has, as the great and good suddenly start scrambling about trying to cover their backsides.
[Post edited 8 Jan 15:08]
4
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 19:13 - Jan 8 with 1146 views
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 15:01 - Jan 8 by BarrySwan
There are a few questions that Spring to my mind and I'm sure those of others that I feel should be the order of the day for investigators and the police.
1) Which individual or individuals issued the instructions that postmasters enquiring of the help line in regards to losses that enquirers be told that they were the only ones having trouble with Horizon.
2) Surely Post office management even way down the pecking order should have been enquiring themselves as to why there were so many apparent losses?
3). Surely Ed Davey and Co should have asked the very simple question of how many prosecutions had been made over discrepancies in the years 1999 to 2016 compared to the previous 16 years which presumably would have shown a massive increase, an indication that something was very very wrong?
4) It must have been apparent to all that there was a problem why didn't senior Post office managers investigate, the police investigate and government investigate?
After all there were plenty of media articles about what was going on I even expressed my astonishment to the owner of my local shop when he took on a Post office outlet in his shop about 5 years ago. He just shrugged his shoulders when I mentioned the Horizon problems and all the prosecutions and losses that had been well publicised up to that date.
He packed in the Post office bit within 18 months due to the derisory commissions for services paid by the post office and gave the opinion that it was costing him more in staff wages to man the Post office counter the he was getting back, even in any perceptible boost in shop trade.
So why has it taken this programme for the Police to start investigating when myself and presumably others were advising people not to take on a Post office franchise quite some years ago?
Similar question to the government and parliament?
5). Why has the Post office, the very organisation who carried out these misdeeds been allowed any contribution to the appeals procedure?
It said on the news this morning that 54 appeals against conviction had been dismissed. How has this happened given the facts that have emerged?
And who exactly has dismissed these appeals?
6) Also on the news this morning some hapless government schill called Bim something or other was boasting that 2,200 or so people had received compensation already even though those still having convictions weren't eligible and wouldn't have received any.
So if 775 at least received convictions and only 94 or so have had those overturned then where have 2.200 odd people recieving compensation come from?
Surely this would indicate that the numbers are actually far in excess of those already quoted in the programme and other media articles on the subject?
7) Who exactly nominated Paula Vennell for a CBE and who approved it? Shouldn't they be named, their identities publicised and them questioned as to why they thought the awarding of an honour suitable given the already known scandal unfolding at the time?
( I do see that a freedom of information request was put in 3 days ago and acknowledged )
8) Why isn't Fujitsu ponying up the compensation and other damages/ costs etc along with the Post Office?
9) That waste of space Sunak today has been saying that it hasn't taken an ITV programme to spark action into this matter?
Really? I think that it appears to most people that I speak to that of course it has, as the great and good suddenly start scrambling about trying to cover their backsides.
[Post edited 8 Jan 15:08]
There are in ecess of 3500 sub postmasters involved in this.
I agree with your comment about Sunak, nobody in government (Apart from, ironically enough a Tory MP) until this programme came out. Now they see an opportunity to make themselves look good when the reality should be they get a slating for ignoring it until now.
There must be a lot of senior staff who knew about this, given the number of people involved spread across the UK. And I personally do NOT believe that Vennells knew nothing of ia problem with Horizon either.
1
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 22:49 - Jan 8 with 1101 views
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 19:13 - Jan 8 by SullutaCreturned
There are in ecess of 3500 sub postmasters involved in this.
I agree with your comment about Sunak, nobody in government (Apart from, ironically enough a Tory MP) until this programme came out. Now they see an opportunity to make themselves look good when the reality should be they get a slating for ignoring it until now.
There must be a lot of senior staff who knew about this, given the number of people involved spread across the UK. And I personally do NOT believe that Vennells knew nothing of ia problem with Horizon either.
Totally agree. I reckon the big wigs at the Post Office and some in government must have known something was out of place, Sunak now jumping on the band wagon when if truth be told the government must have known what was going on a fair while ago.
In 2021 FAW Chief Executive Jonathon Ford stepped down from his post after a no confidence motion was passed. The alleged issues include the appointment of the former high ranking Post Office director Angela Van den Bogerd who in 2019 was found by a High Court judge to have "obfuscated" and "misled" a court. Surely alarm bells should have been ringing in Westminster!!!!! I’d have thought that if the FAW weren't comfortable, then central government should have been all over the scandal.
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 22:49 - Jan 8 by majorraglan
Totally agree. I reckon the big wigs at the Post Office and some in government must have known something was out of place, Sunak now jumping on the band wagon when if truth be told the government must have known what was going on a fair while ago.
In 2021 FAW Chief Executive Jonathon Ford stepped down from his post after a no confidence motion was passed. The alleged issues include the appointment of the former high ranking Post Office director Angela Van den Bogerd who in 2019 was found by a High Court judge to have "obfuscated" and "misled" a court. Surely alarm bells should have been ringing in Westminster!!!!! I’d have thought that if the FAW weren't comfortable, then central government should have been all over the scandal.
This issues goes back decades and many governments. There is a legal process in place for this case and it's not for the government to interfere with it. The current government needs to tread carefully here or there will be a legal precedent set with unintended consequences. Nobody wants a situation where a government is able to override legal proceedings.
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 07:07 - Jan 9 by JACKMANANDBOY
This issues goes back decades and many governments. There is a legal process in place for this case and it's not for the government to interfere with it. The current government needs to tread carefully here or there will be a legal precedent set with unintended consequences. Nobody wants a situation where a government is able to override legal proceedings.
Whilst I broadly agree ther are a lot of unsafe convitions here and these poor people have suffered enough. If the government can make their convictions go away more quickly then I'm for it.
As long as their convictions stand they also cannot get compensation. That has to change, thei lives have been destroyed, they deserve a chance to get their lives back
0
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 13:21 - Jan 9 with 982 views
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 13:28 - Jan 9 by SullutaCreturned
Maybe she has got a conscience after all.
She’s found one down the back of the sofa because it’s easier this way than having it forcefully removed with all the extra publicity that would bring.
1
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 15:38 - Jan 9 with 943 views
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 22:49 - Jan 8 by majorraglan
Totally agree. I reckon the big wigs at the Post Office and some in government must have known something was out of place, Sunak now jumping on the band wagon when if truth be told the government must have known what was going on a fair while ago.
In 2021 FAW Chief Executive Jonathon Ford stepped down from his post after a no confidence motion was passed. The alleged issues include the appointment of the former high ranking Post Office director Angela Van den Bogerd who in 2019 was found by a High Court judge to have "obfuscated" and "misled" a court. Surely alarm bells should have been ringing in Westminster!!!!! I’d have thought that if the FAW weren't comfortable, then central government should have been all over the scandal.
Mr Bates and the Post Office on 07:07 - Jan 9 by JACKMANANDBOY
This issues goes back decades and many governments. There is a legal process in place for this case and it's not for the government to interfere with it. The current government needs to tread carefully here or there will be a legal precedent set with unintended consequences. Nobody wants a situation where a government is able to override legal proceedings.
Currently convictions can only be overturned by the Appeal courts. The Government under our constitution cannot overturn our courts.
The Government can recommend a royal pardon but a royal pardon does not clear the original conviction.
What the Government should be doing is to urge/force the Post Office not to oppose the appeals when they go to the court of appeal. The post office should also admit all the convictions are unsafe. The government should also urge the court of appeal to hear the appeals to the Post Office convictions as a priority.
All the victims should all join together in a class action against both the Post Office and Fujitsu who knew there were problems as early as the software trails around 2000.
The Post Office lied to three Government's, Labour 1997 to 2010. The Conservative Liberal coalition 2010 to 2015 and the Conservative government 2015 to present.
The first conviction were not Quashed until 2021 due to our painfully slow justice system. The Post Office Compensation Bill was passed by Parliament in November 2023. Their is a bit of a catch 22 situation Compensation cannot be paid until the conviction is quashed.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
