Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
blueg33 said:
Eric Mc said:
Castrol for a knave said:
SydneyBridge said:
But she remembered earlier that a particular email was sent/received on a sunday
She's so stupid - she seems to delight in saying she can remember anything that supports her,................ but forgets anything that does not. And she certainly doesn't come across as the ice-maiden she was portrayed as in "Mr Bates V' the Post Office".
There is no doubt that the senior people would not be thick, you simply don't make it to that level if you are.
They all seem to portray the nasty detail as if it is something discussed while making a brew, but not something any of them has any involvement in, heaven forfend.
Castrol for a knave said:
She'll be well briefed, but you and I will have met plenty like her who bully their way to senior management. They are not stupid, but not as sharp as they think and not sharp as a decent KC.
They all seem to portray the nasty detail as if it is something discussed while making a brew, but not something any of them has any involvement in, heaven forfend.
I agree completely. They all seem to portray the nasty detail as if it is something discussed while making a brew, but not something any of them has any involvement in, heaven forfend.
In my line of work I have come across seniors/Directors, Exec Directors, and even Chief Execs who got there by a one or a combination of the following things:
Simply being in the right place at the right time.
Being very friendly with those above them - I'll protect you, you protect me, etc.
Being pushy and aggressive.
Throwing others under the bus to make themselves look ruthless and effective.
An organisation like the Post Office would be the absolute perfect place for people to be promoted on anything except their suitability for the job.
FiF said:
So VDB thinks or believes that the burden of proof is/was on subpostmasters to prove their innocence rather than the PO to prove their guilt.
In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
I quite like the fact that some witnesses e.g. Crichton, are coming back to face further Q's...ideal opportunity compare answers from later witnesses i.e. VDB etc?In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
FiF said:
So VDB thinks or believes that the burden of proof is/was on subpostmasters to prove their innocence rather than the PO to prove their guilt.
In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
In fairness, she's sort of right. Unlike in many countries, the English courts have ruled that a computer system shall be assumed to be infallible unless the contrary can be proved.In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
The SPMs were only responsible for their errors. But the courts assume the computer is always right. Fujitsu seem to have provided a witness who was happy to state that the computer was indeed always right. Ergo the SPMs must be guilty.
The Post Office has behaved awfully. But there's a big hole in our justice system that nobody seems to be talking about.
skwdenyer said:
FiF said:
So VDB thinks or believes that the burden of proof is/was on subpostmasters to prove their innocence rather than the PO to prove their guilt.
In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
In fairness, she's sort of right. Unlike in many countries, the English courts have ruled that a computer system shall be assumed to be infallible unless the contrary can be proved.In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
The SPMs were only responsible for their errors. But the courts assume the computer is always right. Fujitsu seem to have provided a witness who was happy to state that the computer was indeed always right. Ergo the SPMs must be guilty.
The Post Office has behaved awfully. But there's a big hole in our justice system that nobody seems to be talking about.
System produces a letter they produce
Did the PO have such a thing?
Prolex-UK said:
skwdenyer said:
FiF said:
So VDB thinks or believes that the burden of proof is/was on subpostmasters to prove their innocence rather than the PO to prove their guilt.
In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
In fairness, she's sort of right. Unlike in many countries, the English courts have ruled that a computer system shall be assumed to be infallible unless the contrary can be proved.In the unlikely event she faces a court prosecution bet she argues the opposite in her case.
Is scum too mild an epithet?
The SPMs were only responsible for their errors. But the courts assume the computer is always right. Fujitsu seem to have provided a witness who was happy to state that the computer was indeed always right. Ergo the SPMs must be guilty.
The Post Office has behaved awfully. But there's a big hole in our justice system that nobody seems to be talking about.
System produces a letter they produce
Did the PO have such a thing?
e600 said:
Having watched KC Beers questioning of VDB, by her own admission she is guilty of PCOJ in the previous trials.
Does anyone know what the next phase of this exercise will be, ie post inquiry results, does CPS make a decision
Police have to put charges to the CPS & the CPS decides whether the prosecution can proceed.Does anyone know what the next phase of this exercise will be, ie post inquiry results, does CPS make a decision
Not sure I have heard any statements from the police on this - certainly not in the recent past?
skwdenyer said:
In fairness, she's sort of right. Unlike in many countries, the English courts have ruled that a computer system shall be assumed to be infallible unless the contrary can be proved.
The SPMs were only responsible for their errors. But the courts assume the computer is always right. Fujitsu seem to have provided a witness who was happy to state that the computer was indeed always right. Ergo the SPMs must be guilty.
The Post Office has behaved awfully. But there's a big hole in our justice system that nobody seems to be talking about.
However the assumption of computer infallibility is underpinned by the expectation that technical experts on a given system will not perjure themselves when asked under oath about any suspected defects. The SPMs were only responsible for their errors. But the courts assume the computer is always right. Fujitsu seem to have provided a witness who was happy to state that the computer was indeed always right. Ergo the SPMs must be guilty.
The Post Office has behaved awfully. But there's a big hole in our justice system that nobody seems to be talking about.
siremoon said:
However the assumption of computer infallibility is underpinned by the expectation that technical experts on a given system will not perjure themselves when asked under oath about any suspected defects.
Also on the premise that a large government owned business wouldn't set about to pervert the course of justice by engaging in a wide spread conspiracy aided and abetted by Fujitsu/magic circle law firms/senior civil servants and government minsters all funded to the tune of £ hundreds of millions of tax payer money, Jenkins on his own is merely a pawn in that wider conspiracy. When you stop and think about what had to happen to do this, it's jaw dropping, the fact that we paid for this is intolerable.
The PO would not disclose any techincal info about Horizon, error logs etc, so it was completly impossible for a SPM to defend themselves. It was just assumed they were guilty.
As soon as it was known that Fujitsu could make 'adjustments' every conviction was unsafe, in 2010 when Avb does not recall the email
Wonder what we have today, Mr Beer must have saved something good...
As soon as it was known that Fujitsu could make 'adjustments' every conviction was unsafe, in 2010 when Avb does not recall the email
Wonder what we have today, Mr Beer must have saved something good...
SydneyBridge said:
The PO would not disclose any techincal info about Horizon, error logs etc, so it was completly impossible for a SPM to defend themselves. It was just assumed they were guilty.
As soon as it was known that Fujitsu could make 'adjustments' every conviction was unsafe, in 2010 when Avb does not recall the email
Wonder what we have today, Mr Beer must have saved something good...
Did she mention that yesterday? As soon as it was known that Fujitsu could make 'adjustments' every conviction was unsafe, in 2010 when Avb does not recall the email
Wonder what we have today, Mr Beer must have saved something good...
Don't forget to add the duties of an expert witness and failure to disclose
siremoon said:
However the assumption of computer infallibility is underpinned by the expectation that technical experts on a given system will not perjure themselves when asked under oath about any suspected defects.
Bonefish Blues said:
e600 said:
Having watched KC Beers questioning of VDB, by her own admission she is guilty of PCOJ in the previous trials.
Does anyone know what the next phase of this exercise will be, ie post inquiry results, does CPS make a decision
Police have to put charges to the CPS & the CPS decides whether the prosecution can proceed.Does anyone know what the next phase of this exercise will be, ie post inquiry results, does CPS make a decision
Not sure I have heard any statements from the police on this - certainly not in the recent past?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff