Mr Bates versus the Post office.

Is there a bandwagon this PM will not jump on? Now saying Alan Bates should be knighted.

He knew all about this scandal 5 years ago when Chancellor, authorising compensation payouts. It comes up on ITV and suddenly he's changing legislation and making it happen.

Hypocrite.

Funny how the ITV programme never mentioned the role of Adam Crozier as Post Office Chief Exec prior to Vannells by the way...can't be because he's now involved with ITV, surely.
 
BFC_53 said:
The more you read about it, the more it becomes clear that it's a scandal that probably goes to the very top. A lot of those involved keep saying they were misled, but it's completely inconceivable to me that anyone with a single brain cell wouldn't stop and think something weird was going on when so many long service staff suddenly turned to stealing. It's utterly ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as them thinking they could get away with something that affected so many people. If it had been one or two, then we probably wouldn't have heard much of it and it may never have been discovered.
And make no bones about it, the only reason why anything is being done now, aside from the TV drama, is that it's election year. The Tories will do absolutely anything to try and stay in power, and it's why this will now be dealt with quickly in the hopes that it blows over somewhat before the election later this year. It won't, but it won't stop them trying. All the soundbites from MPs on how terrible it is are hollow in the extreme.
Click to expand...
This comes back to the point made in the drama, where each one was told they were the only one complaining about the system.

That must have come from a script. I've never seen any call centre NOT have a script. These places work for a number of companies at the same time and therefore need the script to remember what to say.
 
Wizaard said:
Is there a bandwagon this PM will not jump on? Now saying Alan Bates should be knighted.

He knew all about this scandal 5 years ago when Chancellor, authorising compensation payouts. It comes up on ITV and suddenly he's changing legislation and making it happen.

Hypocrite.

Funny how the ITV programme never mentioned the role of Adam Crozier as Post Office Chief Exec prior to Vannells by the way...can't be because he's now involved with ITV, surely.
Click to expand...
crozier was big cheese when i worked there. another one one the gravy train.
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
they . the SELECT COMMITEE have been interviewing one Stephen Barclay. Po OFFICE investigations. or when i was there simply IB . What a piece of work. Typical IB NOT much upstairs but liked terrifying the shit out of these Sub postmasters. mistress. not me guv. dont recall that. the KC was disecting him piece by piece. now they know What it is to be l,ike to be on the end of a interview. more of the same/ please
Click to expand...
Stephen Bradshaw

Stephen Bradshaw began working for the Post Office in 1978, became part of the investigations team in 2000, and is now security manager. In his evidence so far, he said:

  • By 2010, he was aware of media reports about problems with the Horizon IT system, but said he was "not technically minded... I would expect that to come from the people above"
  • "If there was an issue, I would expect Fujitsu to inform the Post Office, and the Post Office to let us know what the issues are"
  • A statement he signed in 2012 - declaring the Post Office's "absolute confidence" in the software - was written by lawyers, not him
  • "In hindsight... there probably should have been another line, stating these are not my words"
  • With investigators accused of behaving like "mafia gangsters", Bradshaw denied being a bully, and denied being a liar
  • At one point, he called himself a "small cog", and - at the end of the session - repeated his lack of techincal expertise
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
they . the SELECT COMMITEE have been interviewing one Stephen Barclay. Po OFFICE investigations. or when i was there simply IB . What a piece of work. Typical IB NOT much upstairs but liked terrifying the shit out of these Sub postmasters. mistress. not me guv. dont recall that. the KC was disecting him piece by piece. now they know What it is to be l,ike to be on the end of a interview. more of the same/ please
Click to expand...
He came across as an absolute bellend.
 
Old_Laytonian said:
Stephen Bradshaw

Stephen Bradshaw began working for the Post Office in 1978, became part of the investigations team in 2000, and is now security manager. In his evidence so far, he said:

  • By 2010, he was aware of media reports about problems with the Horizon IT system, but said he was "not technically minded... I would expect that to come from the people above"
  • "If there was an issue, I would expect Fujitsu to inform the Post Office, and the Post Office to let us know what the issues are"
  • A statement he signed in 2012 - declaring the Post Office's "absolute confidence" in the software - was written by lawyers, not him
  • "In hindsight... there probably should have been another line, stating these are not my words"
  • With investigators accused of behaving like "mafia gangsters", Bradshaw denied being a bully, and denied being a liar
  • At one point, he called himself a "small cog", and - at the end of the session - repeated his lack of techincal expertise
Click to expand...
sorry BRADSHAW. . i started in 1978. i was dimissed on 2009 . alleged wilful delay of mail. two of these c..ts came to my home. my wife wet herself as they started going through myt home. never denied not delivering advertising leaflets.
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
sorry BRADSHAW. . i started in 1978. i was dimissed on 2009 . alleged wilful delay of mail. two of these c..ts came to my home. my wife wet herself as they started going through myt home. never denied not delivering advertising leaflets.
Click to expand...
Surprised they haven't been knocked out by someone.
 
Shootz said:
Being reported today that investigators were being paid a bonus per conviction...
Click to expand...

Last month, Gary Thomas** – a former member of the Post Office security team between 2000 and 2012 – told the public inquiry there were “bonus objectives” for investigators.
Asked if influenced his actions, he said: “I’d probably be lying if I said no because … it was part of the business, the culture of the business of recoveries or even under the terms of a postmaster’s contract with the contracts manager.”

In an email sent in 2015, Thomas wrote that the Post Office was missing its profit targets because “we stopped getting £XX million (sic) from bloody good financial recoveries.”
He also said “…that there is FFFFiiinnn no ‘Case for the Justice of Thieving Subpostmasters’ and that we were the best Investigators they ever had and they were all crooks!!”

At the Inquiry, Thomas accepted this was “disgraceful” and apologised to “absolutely everybody” because “I’ve labelled absolutely everybody, so I can’t defend it”.

** Gary Thomas started his career in the Post Office as a counter clerk, rising to Crown Office branch manager, before joining the Security Team in 2000, moving to another role in 2012.
He had no previous experience of criminal investigations before joining the security team.
He went on a three week residential course, and before long he was carrying out investigations of sub-postmasters. Thomas describes the remaining training he got from the Post Office to be “minimal”. He left the Post Office in 2017.

www.postofficescandal.uk

Gary’s years of hurt

Gary Thomas Let’s have a look at another one of the frontline plods who made it their business to investigate Subpostmasters and recommend them (or not) for prosecution based on what, at time…
www.postofficescandal.uk www.postofficescandal.uk
 
I’ve just been reading Bradshaws “evidence“ and it strikes me that he’s calling the sub postmasters liars all over again.
 
Surely an organisation investigating and prosecuting it's own staff with barely any outside involvement should have thrown up a thousand red flags?

The older I get the more I realise that what I guessed was happening when I was younger really was the case, everything is run by incompetent wankers and never trust but always question anyone with any power.

Everyone's default position when dealing with authority should be 'you're a fraud and I'm right'. It might have meant I didn't rise to the very top in my career but no one fucked me over either.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Surely an organisation investigating and prosecuting it's own staff with barely any outside involvement should have thrown up a thousand red flags?

The older I get the more I realise that what I guessed was happening when I was younger really was the case, everything is run by incompetent wankers and never trust but always question anyone with any power.

Everyone's default position when dealing with authority should be 'you're a fraud and I'm right'. It might have meant I didn't rise to the very top in my career but no one fucked me over either.
Click to expand...
You and I didn't rise to the top Lyth because we did question it but were Also good at our jobs, if you're really good in your job you rarely get promoted upwards, I experienced it in the public sector and even more so in the private sector, it goes to show that shit does actually roll uphill!
 
Last edited:
Is it me, or does the offer of £75,000 per person take the piss?

What about the cost of 20 years of no pension, job and accommodation, never mind reputational damage, before you even think of the legal costs incurred defending yourself in vain first time round?

This 'quick' solution protects the Post Office from the true cost incurred by those affected.

PS, I see Tufton St is already feeding the line of acquittal for all, means villains get away with it. Indeed, the Minister said it in the Commons yesterday.
 
This is astonishing on a number of counts

www.bbc.co.uk

Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower

The firm smeared postmasters in a failed bid to suppress evidence of their innocence, the BBC reveals.
www.bbc.co.uk

Firstly, in 2015, good evidence of the post office doubling down on there being no system issues despite all the evidence to the contrary by then

Secondly, a public body threatening legal action against another public body. That would need to come from the very top and I'd be curious as to what government officials were made aware of, or involved in the decision making
 
That b!tch Angela van der whatsit is in the news today saying that the ITV drama is inaccurate and she has a different recollection. She's a textbook sociopath and could quite possibly be a secret Oyston love child.
 
Delfino said:
This is astonishing on a number of counts

www.bbc.co.uk

Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower

The firm smeared postmasters in a failed bid to suppress evidence of their innocence, the BBC reveals.
www.bbc.co.uk

Firstly, in 2015, good evidence of the post office doubling down on there being no system issues despite all the evidence to the contrary by then

Secondly, a public body threatening legal action against another public body. That would need to come from the very top and I'd be curious as to what government officials were made aware of, or involved in the decision making
Click to expand...
To add, the BBC does come in for some grief from time to time but I have to say that to investigate and go ahead in the light of threats shows great journalistic integrity
 
BFC1980 said:
That b!tch Angela van der whatsit is in the news today saying that the ITV drama is inaccurate and she has a different recollection. She's a textbook sociopath and could quite possibly be a secret Oyston love child.
Click to expand...
It would be better if everyone involved put their hands up and admitted they got it wrong. I suspect some are trying to avoid the ramifications that may come later, potentially even Court cases.
 
Delfino said:
It would be better if everyone involved put their hands up and admitted they got it wrong. I suspect some are trying to avoid the ramifications that may come later, potentially even Court cases.
Click to expand...
I think that is the issue. There has been perjury, fraud, blackmail and heaven only knows what else, provable even after the PO had a field day destroying documents. In a just world, there would be a lot of jail time coming up for these criminals.
 
BFC1980 said:
That b!tch Angela van der whatsit is in the news today saying that the ITV drama is inaccurate and she has a different recollection. She's a textbook sociopath and could quite possibly be a secret Oyston love child.
Click to expand...
I do hope she will be giving evidence at some point for the Enquiry?

Will give her the oppportunity to have her say.

Not that I would trust a word from the mouth of that duplicitous biitch!
 
The maximum jail sentence for perjury is 7 years. Compounded by fraud, conspiracy to pervert justice etc, there should be a few people looking realistically at that prospect.

It would be like a minor lottery win getting picked for that jury.
 
Wizaard said:
Is there a bandwagon this PM will not jump on? Now saying Alan Bates should be knighted.

He knew all about this scandal 5 years ago when Chancellor, authorising compensation payouts. It comes up on ITV and suddenly he's changing legislation and making it happen.

Hypocrite.

Funny how the ITV programme never mentioned the role of Adam Crozier as Post Office Chief Exec prior to Vannells by the way...can't be because he's now involved with ITV, surely.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely perfect for him. It makes him look good and distracts the media from everything he is comprehensively failing on. He will be asking his paymasters at the Mail to keep this going for months.
 
It has now come out that the interviews were not recorded, something required under PACE. Did PACE not apply to Post office investigations?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I think that is the issue. There has been perjury, fraud, blackmail and heaven only knows what else, provable even after the PO had a field day destroying documents. In a just world, there would be a lot of jail time coming up for these criminals.
Click to expand...
I get that's where the PO has been. I guess I'm surprised that in the light of everything known now, that some still appear to act that way.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The maximum jail sentence for perjury is 7 years. Compounded by fraud, conspiracy to pervert justice etc, there should be a few people looking realistically at that prospect.

It would be like a minor lottery win getting picked for that jury.
Click to expand...
I don't know if there's a choice in the matter but I would imagine the defence lawyers wouldn't want a jury due to the national outrage and 'jury bias'.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The maximum jail sentence for perjury is 7 years. Compounded by fraud, conspiracy to pervert justice etc, there should be a few people looking realistically at that prospect.

It would be like a minor lottery win getting picked for that jury.
Click to expand...
Are you allowed to say guilty before the trial gets underway?
 
BFC1980 said:
I don't know if there's a choice in the matter but I would imagine the defence lawyers wouldn't want a jury due to the national outrage and 'jury bias'.
Click to expand...
Usually, the system relies on the judge to direct the jury to prevent “unconscious” bias. There’s also the jury selection process.

It’s normally only in situations where the jurists’ safety might be threatened that a court dispenses with a jury and the case is decided solely by a judge.

But I think the jury is possibly going to be irrelevant. It’s likely that certain defendants will plead guilty given the weight of evidence and throw themselves on the judge’s mercy.
 
The Simon Clarke advice is damning
It’s ironic that those who put it into the public domain may face sanctions before those who ignored the advice
 
Part of the problem is the legal system loves certainty. An "expert" steps up and says a computer says blah, blah it means it's bang on. Computers don't make mistakes.....
I watched a programme where a bloke had been wrongfully imprisoned on finger print evidence. If an "expert" says the finger prints are a match its a done deal. The programme highlighted how flawed finger print evidence is, it's a comparison where there have to be so many similarities. I was shocked at how subjective it was, the expert in that case was completely wrong. I wonder about DNA evidence, jury's love that kind of certainty, has it ever been used to stitch someone up. I wouldn't be surprised....
 
Eg they were told not to use him again
They were also told they had to notify all those convicted that they may have grounds to appeal
Listening to Singh at the inquiry they continued using him and clearly they didn’t tell those convicted that their expert evidence was flawed
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
That's beyond incredible as it renders every investigation biased

What planet were these incompetents on
Click to expand...
It doesn’t surprise me - it’s the same with the Police, once they think you’re guilty
they’ll ensure it sticks (Birmingham 6 etc) - anything quick & easy to get the politicians and media off their backs

I am pretty sure it was the same in DWP fraud (result….. erm conviction based bonuses) except there evidence gathering was pretty good.

You have to question everything at every level - there’s plenty of people at every level will do almost anything for a fast buck in almost any walk of life, career, occupation. There’s even more who know or probably know what’s going on and simple brush it under the carpet or pretend they know nothing (but did.)
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Eg they were told not to use him again
They were also told they had to notify all those convicted that they may have grounds to appeal
Listening to Singh at the inquiry they continued using him and clearly they didn’t tell those convicted that their expert evidence was flawed
Click to expand...
Thanks. Just read it.

3 things spring out...
1) why did the PO continue non disclosing
2) what triggered the request for the advice
3) what does SC know about why they asked and why they continued to non disclose. Is he himself in trouble too.

Why is the person leaking this in trouble? Is that a law society thing rather than a criminal matter?
 
I wouldnt be surprised if the head of criminal law and the architect expert are prosecuted but what is needed for the exec to be culpable I.e PK and Avdb


And do they need to wait until after the inquiry to prosecute?
 
Delfino said:
Thanks. Just read it.

3 things spring out...
1) why did the PO continue non disclosing
2) what triggered the request for the advice
3) what does SC know about why they asked and why they continued to non disclose. Is he himself in trouble too.

Why is the person leaking this in trouble? Is that a law society thing rather than a criminal matter?
Click to expand...
Disclosure is often subject to undertakings not to disclose beyond those involved
This is dynamite though
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Eg they were told not to use him again
They were also told they had to notify all those convicted that they may have grounds to appeal
Listening to Singh at the inquiry they continued using him and clearly they didn’t tell those convicted that their expert evidence was flawed
Click to expand...
It explains why Singh claimed at the inquiry he wasn't head of anything and all he did was review paperwork.
 
Shandypants said:
Part of the problem is the legal system loves certainty. An "expert" steps up and says a computer says blah, blah it means it's bang on. Computers don't make mistakes.....
I watched a programme where a bloke had been wrongfully imprisoned on finger print evidence. If an "expert" says the finger prints are a match its a done deal. The programme highlighted how flawed finger print evidence is, it's a comparison where there have to be so many similarities. I was shocked at how subjective it was, the expert in that case was completely wrong. I wonder about DNA evidence, jury's love that kind of certainty, has it ever been used to stitch someone up. I wouldn't be surprised....
Click to expand...

Easy enough to plant it in some circumstances……
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
The Simon Clarke advice is damning
It’s ironic that those who put it into the public domain may face sanctions before those who ignored the advice
Click to expand...
As I understood, the “Clarke advice” was a review by an independent lawyer specifically advising against the shredding and disposal of internal PO documents, as had been instructed to be carried out after internal meetings, by the PO Head of Security.
 
Shandypants said:
Part of the problem is the legal system loves certainty. An "expert" steps up and says a computer says blah, blah it means it's bang on. Computers don't make mistakes.....
I watched a programme where a bloke had been wrongfully imprisoned on finger print evidence. If an "expert" says the finger prints are a match its a done deal. The programme highlighted how flawed finger print evidence is, it's a comparison where there have to be so many similarities. I was shocked at how subjective it was, the expert in that case was completely wrong. I wonder about DNA evidence, jury's love that kind of certainty, has it ever been used to stitch someone up. I wouldn't be surprised....
Click to expand...
That is not wholly correct.

Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provided that… it was for the prosecution to show that the computer was operating correctly, and not for the defendant to show that computer was not operating correctly.

This clause of the Act was completely repealed in 1999 after which the legal position was that it was assumed that the computer was correct and it was for the defendant to prove the computer/software was faulty.

Of course, this was impossible when all that faulty software data was suppressed by the PO and Fujitsu and the judge/court had no basis to call it. In fact the judges refused many such defendant’s application for such investigation to be considered as a defence.

This law will now be under review: everyone knows computers can fail as they are programmed by people: Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO as it was known in the 1970s).

And the PO will be stripped of its lawful capability to carry out its own prosecutions following its own investigations. Cowboys out.

davidallengreen.com

“Computer says guilty” – an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly

30th September 2023 This is first in a series of posts on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions scandal * The Post Office prosecutions scandal is the United Kingdom’s greatest mass miscarriage of ju…
davidallengreen.com
 
Last edited:
BFC1980 said:
That b!tch Angela van der whatsit is in the news today saying that the ITV drama is inaccurate and she has a different recollection. She's a textbook sociopath and could quite possibly be a secret Oyston love child.
Click to expand...
she needs . well i wont say it but you get my drift
 
WELL heres a new one. A convicted ex postmaster who murdered his wife is appealing his conviction because THEY the police assumed it was a murder / robbery gone wrong. the horizon business was never part of the evidence. Any way its on my news feed .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top