Jump to content

Post Office scandal

whelk

By whelk
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted

Karma. 

With the media being polluted with so many dreadful people at the moment it makes a pleasant change to see a genuinely decent person make the news for being just that.
 

 

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Karma. 

With the media being polluted with so many dreadful people at the moment it makes a pleasant change to see a genuinely decent person make the news for being just that.
 

 

Yep, although a knighthood feels a tad heavy. MBE territory for me, CBE on a good day. Surprised to not see some of the others not get anything. Kay Linnell played a big part. 

Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, although a knighthood feels a tad heavy. MBE territory for me, CBE on a good day. Surprised to not see some of the others not get anything. Kay Linnell played a big part. 

In the normal course if things, it probably would have been but a CBE/MBE/OBE would have left him level with Vennells in effect so a knighthood differentiates and recognises the struggles to fight chronic injustices over a long period whereas Vennells got her gong for doing her job (appallingly as it turned out).

  • Like 2
whelk

whelk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, egg said:

Yep, although a knighthood feels a tad heavy. MBE territory for me, CBE on a good day. Surprised to not see some of the others not get anything. Kay Linnell played a big part. 

It was good enough for Jimmy Savile

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, whelk said:

It was good enough for Jimmy Savile

Fair point. Looking at it this morning, some of those knight and dame hoods are handed out like toffee apples at a fun fair, and then you get Simon Le Bon and a backing singer from Boney M getting an MBE 40 and 50 years respectively after they were making it big. 

On reflection, Bates probably deserves his gong. 

Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Old Jim got his for all the charity marathon running. The rape and necrophilia wasn't factored in. 

He was knighted for personifying Thatcherism. The rape and necrophillia was ignored.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

He was knighted for personifying Thatcherism. The rape and necrophillia was ignored.

He’s completely missed the point!

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, egg said:

Fair point. Looking at it this morning, some of those knight and dame hoods are handed out like toffee apples at a fun fair, and then you get Simon Le Bon and a backing singer from Boney M getting an MBE 40 and 50 years respectively after they were making it big. 

On reflection, Bates probably deserves his gong. 

I fancy getting my hands on one for services to football forums 

  • Like 1
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wow... this Richard Christou fella giving evidence today (Futitsu ex CEO & Chairman) is giving a masterclass in arrogance, ignorance, smugness, self-aggrandising and lack of emphathy. Responsibilty? Accountablity? "Nah, not me guv, I was just the CEO / Chairman and knew f*** all about what was going on in my company". Someone please wipe that perpetual grin off his face please. 

Edited by trousers
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

Christou says he "had no knowledge" of any prosecutions during his tenure and is "surprised" that Fujitsu staff were giving evidence. What exactly did he get paid for...?

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

In response to the the statement put to him: "the Fujitsu software was proven to be not fit for purpose" he defended Fujitsu's position be responding: "the software being 'fit for purpose' was never written into the contract"

Jesus Christ, is this man for real...?

Edited by trousers
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, trousers said:

In response to the the statement put to him: "the Fujitsu software was proven to be not fit for purpose" he defended Fujitsu's position be responding: "the software being 'fit for purpose' was never written into the contract"

Jesus Christ, is this man for real...?

If he is, it says a lot about the PO lawyers who signed off the contract!

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If he is, it says a lot about the PO lawyers who signed off the contract!

Totally agree, but for this bloke to sit there grinning from ear-to-ear and referring to a 'loop hole' in the contract to get him off the hook must make the postmasters feel like punching his lights out!  (metophorically of course)

Shame they had the softer questioners on duty today.

Edited by trousers
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

Up today.... George Thomson, the former General Secretary of the National Federation of Subpostmasters.... 15 minutes in and I don't think he could get any further up his own arse if he tried. Zero empathy for the people he's supposed to have represented, still maintaining that the Horizon system was/is "robust".... I think the questioner might get up and lamp him before the end of proceedings.... keeps having to tell him to shut the f*** up and just answer the questions.... #reachesforthepopcorn

 

 

Edited by trousers
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

Now Sir Wyn has had to step in to tell him to shut the f*** up and answer the actual questions. Are all union/federation leaders this belligerent / arrogant....? 

Edited by trousers
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
On 19/06/2024 at 16:59, Weston Super Saint said:

If he is, it says a lot about the PO lawyers who signed off the contract!

Not really. Virtually every single software contract says the product is not warranted as fit for a particular purpose and is not error free. That is very standard.

Of course, that doesn't mean they have no liability if it is a shower of shit.

It's also unusual for customers of software companies to play an active role in suppressing how bad it is.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

From the BBC reporting on Gareth Jenkins' being questioned on his witness statements for the prosecution of a sub-postmaster;

"On Wednesday the inquiry was shown drafts of witness statements by Mr Jenkins, drawn up as Post Office prosecutors prepared their case against Mr Thomas.

In his first draft, Mr Jenkins said “system failure” could be one of the reasons behind the problems at Mr Thomas’ branch, adding that “such failures are normal occurrences”.

The inquiry was shown how this line had been deleted, in edits to the document made by Post Office investigator, Graham Ward.

Mr Ward added in tracked changes to the document: “This is a really poor choice of words which seems to accept that failures in the system are normal and therefore may well support the postmasters' claim that the system is to blame for losses !!!!”

In a separate email to Mr Jenkins, Mr Ward told him his statement needed work, saying it was “potentially very damaging” and that the Post Office needed to ensure it was not “embarrassed” in court."

 

Doctoring evidence and not disclosing to the defence information they might find useful - not looking good for Mr Ward. Jenkins is already being investigated for perjury.

Edited by badgerx16
  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just catching up yesterday's session with former MP and Post Office Minister Kelly Tolhurst.... f*** me... how does someone this intellectually challenged, and woefully out of their depth, end up in a position of significant power and responsibility....? Frightening. 

Pat McFadden and Ed Davey appear today....

 

Edited by trousers
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

Everybody else was misleading me, and I didn't think to ask questions. I thought Ministers ran Departments, rather than simply and blindly signing the bits of paper that passed across their desks.

 

When is Jim Hacker appearing before the Inquiry?

Edited by badgerx16
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

From the BBC coverage today;

''We’ve been hearing this afternoon from another former business secretary, Greg Clark. Here’s what he had to say:

    Clark claimed the Post Office prosecutions were brought in a way "that was, I’m afraid, corrupt", "unreliable", and "totally conscionable"

    The former business secretary said the management culture of the Post Office was "insensitive and dismissive to the point of abject rudeness"

    Clark was "angry" when officials said they would appeal the High Court judgement in 2019 for "tactical" reasons. The Post Office wanted to play "a legal game", he said.''

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...