Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Wills2 said:
Maxdecel said:
kevinon said:
Alan Bates kicking back against the 'grassroots' campaign to stop litigation being funded by specialists.
From - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
Thanks for that, very interesting. Watching the drama I cursed the financiers when the outcome was revealed.From - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
However - " Therium, and our legal teams, even took a haircut on their returns to ensure the victims group received some return as they went on to pursue the truth through further court cases, enabling convictions to be overturned and real financial redress to be sought."
IIRC? This wasn't mentioned, if it had I might've tempered my opinion they were just money grabbers and justice was insignificant to them.
The attempts to block this kind of redress shows you what we're up against, it doesn't matter what their motivations were only that they enabled a light to be shone on what had happened.
skwdenyer said:
So perhaps we need US-style NWNF agreements instead? It would be much fairer for all if the lawyers just took, say, 30% of the pot, rather than bring guaranteed their costs and profits. It would encourage them to fight for a proper settlement, not just one that benefited them.
Then you'd run the obvious risk of cases like theirs never coming to court as the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze. Wills2 said:
skwdenyer said:
So perhaps we need US-style NWNF agreements instead? It would be much fairer for all if the lawyers just took, say, 30% of the pot, rather than bring guaranteed their costs and profits. It would encourage them to fight for a proper settlement, not just one that benefited them.
Then you'd run the obvious risk of cases like theirs never coming to court as the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze. The problem with the Bates case was it was settled too early, and too cheaply. The arbitrary caps on certain classes of damages in the UK doesn't help that, either.
skwdenyer said:
Then allow both systems to co-exist?
The problem with the Bates case was it was settled too early, and too cheaply. The arbitrary caps on certain classes of damages in the UK doesn't help that, either.
I've no wish to debate you on the matter, so lets just agree to disagree, I like this thread it's refreshing because it hasn't been dragged down any rabbit holes or side streets with the inquiry and the actions of POL still being the main focus, so let's try to keep it that way. The problem with the Bates case was it was settled too early, and too cheaply. The arbitrary caps on certain classes of damages in the UK doesn't help that, either.
Wills2 said:
skwdenyer said:
Then allow both systems to co-exist?
The problem with the Bates case was it was settled too early, and too cheaply. The arbitrary caps on certain classes of damages in the UK doesn't help that, either.
I've no wish to debate you on the matter, so lets just agree to disagree, I like this thread it's refreshing because it hasn't been dragged down any rabbit holes or side streets with the inquiry and the actions of POL still being the main focus, so let's try to keep it that way. The problem with the Bates case was it was settled too early, and too cheaply. The arbitrary caps on certain classes of damages in the UK doesn't help that, either.
We start with a couple of former POL Directors from Tuesday, the Wednesday one being Patrick Bourke, former Government Affairs and Policy Director at POL.
Does that mean he was also answerable to the Government, them being the shareholder, as I understand it? Could be interesting if that's the case!
Does that mean he was also answerable to the Government, them being the shareholder, as I understand it? Could be interesting if that's the case!
Short Grain said:
We start with a couple of former POL Directors from Tuesday, the Wednesday one being Patrick Bourke, former Government Affairs and Policy Director at POL.
Does that mean he was also answerable to the Government, them being the shareholder, as I understand it? Could be interesting if that's the case!
All Directors were answerable to the shareholder.Does that mean he was also answerable to the Government, them being the shareholder, as I understand it? Could be interesting if that's the case!
In terms of who was representing the shareholder, this is what I posted a few pages back:
skwdenyer said:
Apparently a senior civil servant was on the Project Sparrow committee: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ca...
He was Richard Callard, holding the official role of HMG representative on the Post Office board.
I don’t know for how long Callard held that post; I assume there were other post-holders over time.He was Richard Callard, holding the official role of HMG representative on the Post Office board.
Bonefish Blues said:
Short Grain said:
hidetheelephants said:
Short Grain said:
Mods, I don't actually like popcorn, but can we have a popcorn smiley, please!
D'oh
is appropriate though as I didn't pick it up when replying to the post! Anyway, back to the enquiry
Are we seeing the beginnings of the Vennels defence here? She asked her CoS what should be done, CoS asks the PR guy. CoS advises Vennels all is well.
Whether that's something constructed at the time (I get the feeling a lot of these people are adept at sending emails asking for advice so they can refer to them later - a survival mechanism in this world?), or something crystalised later, there was clearly either (a) something totally rotten in the management of the business, wherein nobody had any apparent control or oversight over anything; or (b) these are just very slimy characters well-versed in arse-covering. Or maybe both?
Whether that's something constructed at the time (I get the feeling a lot of these people are adept at sending emails asking for advice so they can refer to them later - a survival mechanism in this world?), or something crystalised later, there was clearly either (a) something totally rotten in the management of the business, wherein nobody had any apparent control or oversight over anything; or (b) these are just very slimy characters well-versed in arse-covering. Or maybe both?
TwinKam said:
Not watching live, but early impressions are of someone hoping to be re-employed by PV and/or AVdB at some future date... 
Comms Director? No, Head of Spin. And still believes it.
"There are none so blind as those that will not see".
Comms Director? No, Head of Spin. And still believes it.
"There are none so blind as those that will not see".
Upton Sinclair said:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff