Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Wills2 said:
I sincerely hope she gets her day in a crown court, finding a jury that doesn't just want to move to straight to sentencing might be a issue though.
Agree re court although one can see the objection from the defence team already - “given the PI evidence there is no possibility of our client/s obtaining a fair trial” Wonder if the CPS would go along with that?
Boringvolvodriver said:
Wills2 said:
I sincerely hope she gets her day in a crown court, finding a jury that doesn't just want to move to straight to sentencing might be a issue though.
Agree re court although one can see the objection from the defence team already - “given the PI evidence there is no possibility of our client/s obtaining a fair trial” Wonder if the CPS would go along with that?
heebeegeetee said:
Blimey, been watching all morning (and all day yesterday) I'm exhausted. Fair play to her, she doesn't give in, she's been under relentless pressure.
Would it be fair to say, I think she's been lying throughout, particularly today, but despite all the resources of this enquiry they haven't nailed her down on a single thing? (I'll be surprised if the post-Panorama letter to the Asian gentleman stands up though).
I suppose all the circumstantial evidence is there that she was part of the whole thing, although she just continues to deny that she did anything wrong. Would it be fair to say, I think she's been lying throughout, particularly today, but despite all the resources of this enquiry they haven't nailed her down on a single thing? (I'll be surprised if the post-Panorama letter to the Asian gentleman stands up though).
For example there was clear evidence yesterday she'd been told about remote access in an email at least a month before she says she knew about it, but just denied she'd read it, or "forgot". Then later on she's very careful to say to an accused SPM that the PO had no remote access, despite knowing full well that Fujitsu did. I mean, technically, that's correct, but it's very very sharp practice.
I must say I have a sneaking admiration for the way she's stonewalling all this stuff so confidently. Bit different from Rodric Williams.
Edited by outnumbered on Friday 26th April 14:19
The question of remote access is a complete red herring. As has been said, any access appears to leave an audit trail so shouldn't be a problem to unravel.
It's the whole "couldn't care less", or "we're alright Jack" that's truly mind-bending. And it can't just be one person; it must be the entire senior management culture. Absolutely appalling.
It's the whole "couldn't care less", or "we're alright Jack" that's truly mind-bending. And it can't just be one person; it must be the entire senior management culture. Absolutely appalling.
In only very slight defence of this woman, I think it is dangerous for us to look at this mess in terms of conventional organisations. In a lot of large QUANGOs, there simply isn't the sort of power structure we might think.
By way of analogy, a family friend was a long-term employee in the British Council. He wanted to be Director General. For decades he toiled, until he reached the Deputy DG role - and then quickly left. When asked why he did that, when he was so close to his ambition, he was very clear: "All my working life I wanted to get to the top where the power was, so that I could effect change in the organisation. When I got there, I realised I'd missed the power on the way up."
I get the impression of a really badly-structured organisation, operating on the basis of historical momentum, and with little to no accountability for actual decisions. I also get the impression of people hiding within that organisation who (a) shouldn't have been there, and (b) who were simply unwilling to get a hold of things and make them right.
The precise degree of criminal culpability is for a different forum to decide. But in terms of the organisation, this needs a complete shake-up, starting with a properly-empowered CEO and executive team with a remit (and resources) to reform it.
By way of analogy, a family friend was a long-term employee in the British Council. He wanted to be Director General. For decades he toiled, until he reached the Deputy DG role - and then quickly left. When asked why he did that, when he was so close to his ambition, he was very clear: "All my working life I wanted to get to the top where the power was, so that I could effect change in the organisation. When I got there, I realised I'd missed the power on the way up."
I get the impression of a really badly-structured organisation, operating on the basis of historical momentum, and with little to no accountability for actual decisions. I also get the impression of people hiding within that organisation who (a) shouldn't have been there, and (b) who were simply unwilling to get a hold of things and make them right.
The precise degree of criminal culpability is for a different forum to decide. But in terms of the organisation, this needs a complete shake-up, starting with a properly-empowered CEO and executive team with a remit (and resources) to reform it.
Skwdenyer is right - it is very much a case of a dysfunctional organisation, with opaque roles, which people can hide themselves and importantly, their decision's within.
That said, there is an increasingly clear paper trail and no amount of shoulder shrugging and poor memory is going to cloak the fact that senior officers in the PO were acting against justice for many years.
I too had a grudging admiration for the way she just faced down the questioning, though I think a lot of this is that she is lost in her own reality.
It's an inquiry. If she was in the dock, it would be a lot messier and lot more aggressive.
That said, there is an increasingly clear paper trail and no amount of shoulder shrugging and poor memory is going to cloak the fact that senior officers in the PO were acting against justice for many years.
I too had a grudging admiration for the way she just faced down the questioning, though I think a lot of this is that she is lost in her own reality.
It's an inquiry. If she was in the dock, it would be a lot messier and lot more aggressive.
Castrol for a knave said:
Skwdenyer is right - it is very much a case of a dysfunctional organisation, with opaque roles, which people can hide themselves and importantly, their decision's within.
That said, there is an increasingly clear paper trail and no amount of shoulder shrugging and poor memory is going to cloak the fact that senior officers in the PO were acting against justice for many years.
I too had a grudging admiration for the way she just faced down the questioning, though I think a lot of this is that she is lost in her own reality.
It's an inquiry. If she was in the dock, it would be a lot messier and lot more aggressive.
Tick-toc; it's only a matter of time.That said, there is an increasingly clear paper trail and no amount of shoulder shrugging and poor memory is going to cloak the fact that senior officers in the PO were acting against justice for many years.
I too had a grudging admiration for the way she just faced down the questioning, though I think a lot of this is that she is lost in her own reality.
It's an inquiry. If she was in the dock, it would be a lot messier and lot more aggressive.
skwdenyer said:
In only very slight defence of this woman, I think it is dangerous for us to look at this mess in terms of conventional organisations. In a lot of large QUANGOs, there simply isn't the sort of power structure we might think.
By way of analogy, a family friend was a long-term employee in the British Council. He wanted to be Director General. For decades he toiled, until he reached the Deputy DG role - and then quickly left. When asked why he did that, when he was so close to his ambition, he was very clear: "All my working life I wanted to get to the top where the power was, so that I could effect change in the organisation. When I got there, I realised I'd missed the power on the way up."
I get the impression of a really badly-structured organisation, operating on the basis of historical momentum, and with little to no accountability for actual decisions. I also get the impression of people hiding within that organisation who (a) shouldn't have been there, and (b) who were simply unwilling to get a hold of things and make them right.
The precise degree of criminal culpability is for a different forum to decide. But in terms of the organisation, this needs a complete shake-up, starting with a properly-empowered CEO and executive team with a remit (and resources) to reform it.
Agreed. By way of analogy, a family friend was a long-term employee in the British Council. He wanted to be Director General. For decades he toiled, until he reached the Deputy DG role - and then quickly left. When asked why he did that, when he was so close to his ambition, he was very clear: "All my working life I wanted to get to the top where the power was, so that I could effect change in the organisation. When I got there, I realised I'd missed the power on the way up."
I get the impression of a really badly-structured organisation, operating on the basis of historical momentum, and with little to no accountability for actual decisions. I also get the impression of people hiding within that organisation who (a) shouldn't have been there, and (b) who were simply unwilling to get a hold of things and make them right.
The precise degree of criminal culpability is for a different forum to decide. But in terms of the organisation, this needs a complete shake-up, starting with a properly-empowered CEO and executive team with a remit (and resources) to reform it.
I have already reached the conclusion that what is happening here is more important that the retributive action of individual court cases, for a couple of reasons:
1. The standard of proof in a criminal trial means the public interest risk of one or more of the senior actors being found not guilty would significantly undermine the wider changes required as a result of this
2. The system level of failure here - I maintain this is the largest corporate governance failure I am aware of (and certainly in my 20 year working life as a lawyer) - means that so many people are "guilty by association" that we wouldn't be able to prosecute them all and that prosecuting a few senior leaders would look more like a show trial than the effective dispensing of justice.
We can all see the direction of travel here and the public inquiry is doing its job. It's what comes next for me that will be fundamentally important. Without wanting to get political, I can't see that the current government has in its capacity, but I would hope that the with next government - especially if one led by the former DPP - that corporate governance and accountability is revisited.
OMITN said:
Agreed.
I have already reached the conclusion that what is happening here is more important that the retributive action of individual court cases, for a couple of reasons:
1. The standard of proof in a criminal trial means the public interest risk of one or more of the senior actors being found not guilty would significantly undermine the wider changes required as a result of this
2. The system level of failure here - I maintain this is the largest corporate governance failure I am aware of (and certainly in my 20 year working life as a lawyer) - means that so many people are "guilty by association" that we wouldn't be able to prosecute them all and that prosecuting a few senior leaders would look more like a show trial than the effective dispensing of justice.
We can all see the direction of travel here and the public inquiry is doing its job. It's what comes next for me that will be fundamentally important. Without wanting to get political, I can't see that the current government has in its capacity, but I would hope that the with next government - especially if one led by the former DPP - that corporate governance and accountability is revisited.
Would Private prosecutions, as Mr Bates has indicated he's got finance to undertake, have to be of Individuals or against the PO Corporation as a whole?I have already reached the conclusion that what is happening here is more important that the retributive action of individual court cases, for a couple of reasons:
1. The standard of proof in a criminal trial means the public interest risk of one or more of the senior actors being found not guilty would significantly undermine the wider changes required as a result of this
2. The system level of failure here - I maintain this is the largest corporate governance failure I am aware of (and certainly in my 20 year working life as a lawyer) - means that so many people are "guilty by association" that we wouldn't be able to prosecute them all and that prosecuting a few senior leaders would look more like a show trial than the effective dispensing of justice.
We can all see the direction of travel here and the public inquiry is doing its job. It's what comes next for me that will be fundamentally important. Without wanting to get political, I can't see that the current government has in its capacity, but I would hope that the with next government - especially if one led by the former DPP - that corporate governance and accountability is revisited.
LimmerickLad said:
Would Private prosecutions, as Mr Bates has indicated he's got finance to undertake, have to be of Individuals or against the PO Corporation as a whole?
Individuals. I suspect the grounds for prosecutions would be pretty narrow.
She’s getting the skewering today - the press aren’t going to be kind….
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff