British Post Office Scandal

[Delbow]

8 hours ago, hackey lad said:

I’m not following you around, don’t flatter yourself .  
I see you haven’t defended what you posted.

I don't feel the need to defend myself to someone with your moral compass.

[m williamson]

Seen this today, I don't know if its been mentioned on this thread previously. 

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/post-office-paid-bonuses-every-214233976.html

 

It seems to me that someone in an official capacity should have a word with Mr Gary Thomas and the rest of the Post Office security team.

Listening to the radio yesterday a former Post Office owner who was prosecuted said that he had suggested to the security staff that he thought it might have been caused by a problem with the new computer system.

They told him that as he was the only one in the situation that couldn't be it.

 

That is a clear case of malevolent behaviour designed to make money from an innocent persons problem over which they had no control. Innocent people went to jail and lives were ruined.    More people now need to go to jail, guilty ones this time.

 

[peak4]

On 09/01/2024 at 13:56, Axe said:

They have been found guilty or admitted guilt.  Not every postmaster prosecuted can be a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  If everyone of those people are declared innocent then a number will surely be wrongly declared innocent.  I have no doubt those featured in the TV drama are all innocent but I doubt very much all those coming forward now are innocent.  There is a bandwagon jumping scenario. 

 

On 09/01/2024 at 14:22, Organgrinder said:

It's commonplace for innocent people to admit guilt to get a reduced sentence,  knowing they faced almost certain imprisonment.

You have no idea how many victims there were and what you doubt is not a strong enough proof of their guilt.

I have already told you that those found guilty were pronounced guilty by a series of lies and false evidence.

There can be no guilt where the slightest doubt exists.

Glad to see that the honour is being handed back and I hope she's going to jail in their place soon,   as she let others be jailed, knowing it was on false evidence.

 

From DAG's article in Prospect; You may need to register for a free account to read it

 

"The Post Office also employed an unpleasant tactic to secure convictions. A defendant would be (over) charged with theft, even though there was not sufficient evidence to make that offence out. To escape prosecution as a thief, the unfortunate defendant would plead guilty to the lesser offence of false accounting. As such, innocent defendants accepted criminal liability so as to escape a heavy sentence. "

 

"To begin with, it is a rule of evidence for the courts of England and Wales that computer records will be presumed to be accurate, unless the defendant can show otherwise. In effect, this means “computer says guilty”.  

This presumption was not always case, and before 1999 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provided that in criminal cases the presumption was the other way around. But just as the world was becoming even more dependent on computer software, the government blithely accepted a clumsy and ill-informed Law Commission proposal to repeal the 1984 provision.

But what made the legal situation far worse for the Post Office defendants was that they had no real chance of accessing the internal error logs that would have enabled them to rebut the presumption and show that the computer records were unreliable. The key documents simply were not disclosed.  "

[ECCOnoob]

6 hours ago, Prettytom said:

What about the people who have had their lives ruined?

 

What about the taxpayers who are going to have to foot the bill for this miscarriage of justice..

 

The facts are simple. Fujitsu’s stuff failed. Fujitsu’s senior executives are to blame. As I said before, it’s always that simple when bonuses are being handed out.

 

I can remember you making similar comments about Grenfell. You said that we needed to establish all the facts and that it was “complicated”. . I said that the facts were simple, the tower was dangerous and people had died.  Seven years later,  that can is still being kicked down the road.

....demonstrating that the facts on Grenfell were not as simple as you thought then. 

 

It's needed an inquiry lasting over 4 years, two phases of reviewing, an estimated 300,000 evidence documents and a still to be finalised report which is four volumes long and counting.

 

Even after all that, the met police are still in debate about whether there are any sufficient grounds to actually bring criminal manslaughter  charges against the 13 people they have interviewed under caution.  

 

The post office fallout will be exactly the same. Its inevitable because of the vast numbers of people, differing organisations, time frames, and list of potential failure points. That's before we get on to the complications of human error vs. deliberate negligence, who was pulling whose strings, who knew what about X and Y, who instructed, who directed, who organised, who checked it, who reported it, what got reported, what got done, what should have got done.... 

 

I get the anger and the outrage and the demands from "the public". But I am also in a position from first and real world experience of dealing with companies who breach regulations or make catastrophic mistakes. I'm well versed in the processes that are undertaken, the conflicts continually arising, the protracted arguments, the lengthy evidence process, the disclosure reviewing... I'm also more than aware that in nearly all these circumstances, as I keep saying, there is not a single point of blame and not a single head that can simply be given the chop.  Doesn't work like that. 

 

"The public" always declare the over simplistic solution. They are always looking for that pantomime villain who can be booed and hissed at.  "The public" can't wait to see someone spectacularly topple from their perch.   But the reality is different. Even more so when you're talking about activities and events going on for nearly 30 years, involving at least half a dozen organisations with a continually revolving cast of characters. 

 

Look, I am not saying that those wrongly convicted don't deserve their justice. I am not saying they don't deserve significantly more in compensation. But what I am trying to do is give some reality to all these people who seem to think is so simple and all those who seem to think that anyone and everyone involved will suddenly be locked up tomorrow. It isn't going to happen.

Edited January 11 by ECCOnoob

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, peak4 said:

 

From DAG's article in Prospect; You may need to register for a free account to read it

 

"The Post Office also employed an unpleasant tactic to secure convictions. A defendant would be (over) charged with theft, even though there was not sufficient evidence to make that offence out. To escape prosecution as a thief, the unfortunate defendant would plead guilty to the lesser offence of false accounting. As such, innocent defendants accepted criminal liability so as to escape a heavy sentence. "

 

"To begin with, it is a rule of evidence for the courts of England and Wales that computer records will be presumed to be accurate, unless the defendant can show otherwise. In effect, this means “computer says guilty”.  

This presumption was not always case, and before 1999 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provided that in criminal cases the presumption was the other way around. But just as the world was becoming even more dependent on computer software, the government blithely accepted a clumsy and ill-informed Law Commission proposal to repeal the 1984 provision.

But what made the legal situation far worse for the Post Office defendants was that they had no real chance of accessing the internal error logs that would have enabled them to rebut the presumption and show that the computer records were unreliable. The key documents simply were not disclosed.  "

Thank s for sharing that extra bit of info peak4.     It quite clear that those poor people were already convicted before they even walked into court.

I do hope that our modern legal system is looked at in a different light, especially with a view to computer evidence and a level playing field restored again.

 

[Prettytom]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

....demonstrating that the facts on Grenfell were not as simple as you thought then. 

 

It's needed an inquiry lasting over 4 years, two phases of reviewing, an estimated 300,000 evidence documents and a still to be finalised report which is four volumes long and counting.

 

Even after all that, the met police are still in debate about whether there are any sufficient grounds to actually bring criminal manslaughter  charges against the 13 people they have interviewed under caution.  

 

The post office fallout will be exactly the same. Its inevitable because of the vast numbers of people, differing organisations, time frames, and list of potential failure points. That's before we get on to the complications of human error vs. deliberate negligence, who was pulling whose strings, who knew what about X and Y, who instructed, who directed, who organised, who checked it, who reported it, what got reported, what got done, what should have got done.... 

 

I get the anger and the outrage and the demands from "the public". But I am also in a position from first and real world experience of dealing with companies who breach regulations or make catastrophic mistakes. I'm well versed in the processes that are undertaken, the conflicts continually arising, the protracted arguments, the lengthy evidence process, the disclosure reviewing... I'm also more than aware that in nearly all these circumstances, as I keep saying, there is not a single point of blame and not a single head that can simply be given the chop.  Doesn't work like that. 

 

"The public" always declare the over simplistic solution. They are always looking for that pantomime villain who can be booed and hissed at.  "The public" can't wait to see someone spectacularly topple from their perch.   But the reality is different. Even more so when you're talking about activities and events going on for nearly 30 years, involving at least half a dozen organisations with a continually revolving cast of characters. 

 

Look, I am not saying that those wrongly convicted don't deserve their justice. I am not saying they don't deserve significantly more in compensation. But what I am trying to do is give some reality to all these people who seem to think is so simple and all those who seem to think that anyone and everyone involved will suddenly be locked up tomorrow. It isn't going to happen.

If anyone was wondering whether the legal profession needed reform, look no further.

 

Obfuscation , lies, arcane practices. All designed to keep the little people in their place.

 

Meanwhile, we are the ones paying for the Post Office Scandal, Grenfell, and all the other injustices that have been booted to public inquiry. And our money circles in increasing amounts into the pockets of the lawyers who drag these things out for years.

 

Time for change.

[pfifes]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

....demonstrating that the facts on Grenfell were not as simple as you thought then. 

 

It's needed an inquiry lasting over 4 years, two phases of reviewing, an estimated 300,000 evidence documents and a still to be finalised report which is four volumes long and counting.

 

Even after all that, the met police are still in debate about whether there are any sufficient grounds to actually bring criminal manslaughter  charges against the 13 people they have interviewed under caution.  

 

The post office fallout will be exactly the same. Its inevitable because of the vast numbers of people, differing organisations, time frames, and list of potential failure points. That's before we get on to the complications of human error vs. deliberate negligence, who was pulling whose strings, who knew what about X and Y, who instructed, who directed, who organised, who checked it, who reported it, what got reported, what got done, what should have got done.... 

 

I get the anger and the outrage and the demands from "the public". But I am also in a position from first and real world experience of dealing with companies who breach regulations or make catastrophic mistakes. I'm well versed in the processes that are undertaken, the conflicts continually arising, the protracted arguments, the lengthy evidence process, the disclosure reviewing... I'm also more than aware that in nearly all these circumstances, as I keep saying, there is not a single point of blame and not a single head that can simply be given the chop.  Doesn't work like that. 

 

"The public" always declare the over simplistic solution. They are always looking for that pantomime villain who can be booed and hissed at.  "The public" can't wait to see someone spectacularly topple from their perch.   But the reality is different. Even more so when you're talking about activities and events going on for nearly 30 years, involving at least half a dozen organisations with a continually revolving cast of characters. 

 

Look, I am not saying that those wrongly convicted don't deserve their justice. I am not saying they don't deserve significantly more in compensation. But what I am trying to do is give some reality to all these people who seem to think is so simple and all those who seem to think that anyone and everyone involved will suddenly be locked up tomorrow. It isn't going to happen.

So what now?  Do you think all postmasters should just accept their lot, shut up and know their place because there’s no point fighting for justice?  Look at what Mr Bates has done.  Look at the public outcry after the TV show.  And look at overturning of the convictions.  You would have told Mr Bates there was point taking this on wouldn’t you?  
 

And I’ve already explained the role of leaders and why they should carry responsibility for organisational failure.

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, pfifes said:

So what now?  Do you think all postmasters should just accept their lot, shut up and know their place because there’s no point fighting for justice?  Look at what Mr Bates has done.  Look at the public outcry after the TV show.  And look at overturning of the convictions.  You would have told Mr Bates there was point taking this on wouldn’t you?  
 

And I’ve already explained the role of leaders and why they should carry responsibility for organisational failure.

No, didn't say that at all.  They are of course due their justice. They are going through the process right now.   Is nothing to do with "knowing their place"

 

What I keep trying to demonstrate is that this is not a quick process. There is no instant solution. There's no single head that's going to fall and take all the blame. That is not how it works. 

 

The victim's justice will be from failure of 'the system'.  A complex system which involved multiple corporations, several different governments, several different ministers, the CPS, the court service, accountants and lawyers all potentially being a contribution to the failures leading for the scandal.

 

Quite right the priority focus at the moment is overturning the convictions then it will be a proper justified compensation award which will then be followed by the usual  investigations, lessons learnt, new laws, and regulations to seek to stop it happening again etc....  I am sure for "the public"and the victims that will never be enough.

 

But that is the reality I've been trying to demonstrate free from all the emotive outrage and bluster of the public opinion created by TV drama.

 

Don't remember quite as much public outrage when the scandal first broke and was somberly and dryly reported in the Broadsheets and on Newsnight and Radio 4  but ITV produce a dramatised version years later and suddenly everyone cares....   Fickle the public.  

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Prettytom said:

If anyone was wondering whether the legal profession needed reform, look no further.

 

Obfuscation , lies, arcane practices. All designed to keep the little people in their place.

 

Meanwhile, we are the ones paying for the Post Office Scandal, Grenfell, and all the other injustices that have been booted to public inquiry. And our money circles in increasing amounts into the pockets of the lawyers who drag these things out for years.

 

Time for change.

Yeah yeah. Heard it all before.

 

Funny how its that same legal profession and  lawyers who are championing for the victims to get in their compensation and get the truth out of the post office scandal.

 

Funny how people don't mind the legal profession and those lawyers when it comes to overturning controversial decisions by corporations or government departments or local authorities.

 

They don't mind those lawyers and legal profession when it comes to appealing unfair benefits decisions or reaching group compensation settlements for victims of illness or disease from legacy industries.

 

Quite happy to sign up to that legal profession and those lawyers when it comes to dealing with their domestic disputes, protecting their property and assets, resolving their employment disputes, protecting their businesses, overturning insurance disputes, recouping bad debts or their property from wrongdoers.

 

Works both ways. 

 

The legal profession has been "reformed" so many times they've lost count.  The running joke is everyone hates lawyers until they need one.  

Edited January 11 by ECCOnoob

[Axe]

4 hours ago, peak4 said:

 

From DAG's article in Prospect; You may need to register for a free account to read it

 

"The Post Office also employed an unpleasant tactic to secure convictions. A defendant would be (over) charged with theft, even though there was not sufficient evidence to make that offence out. To escape prosecution as a thief, the unfortunate defendant would plead guilty to the lesser offence of false accounting. As such, innocent defendants accepted criminal liability so as to escape a heavy sentence. "

 

"To begin with, it is a rule of evidence for the courts of England and Wales that computer records will be presumed to be accurate, unless the defendant can show otherwise. In effect, this means “computer says guilty”.  

This presumption was not always case, and before 1999 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provided that in criminal cases the presumption was the other way around. But just as the world was becoming even more dependent on computer software, the government blithely accepted a clumsy and ill-informed Law Commission proposal to repeal the 1984 provision.

But what made the legal situation far worse for the Post Office defendants was that they had no real chance of accessing the internal error logs that would have enabled them to rebut the presumption and show that the computer records were unreliable. The key documents simply were not disclosed.  "

The problem arose because the Post Office has the power to do their own investigations and prosecutions.   The Post Office was formed before the Police Service  and legislation has never been passed to removed their outdated powers.  Criminals should be prosecuted for committing illegal acts. If evidence comes to light later which shows they did not commit the offence, then any conviction should be overturned. It doesn't need a new law to state that the crime was not committed because the justice system can already cater for that. It is an overreaction by the government to pass legislation to clear all the postmasters as one single group.  I would rather the government bring in new legislation to override outdated international treaties  which  prevent illegal economic migrants being removed  from our country than bring in legislation to override hundreds of domestic judicial decisions  in one instance.