Mr Bates vs The Post Office

[Gazzab]

ziggy328 said:

Just watching the Alan Cook session. He doesn't know much about anything!!

I worked for him at prudential many years ago. He always came across as a bit dim and a play safe. He was promoted whilst I was there before the CEO got rid of him.
Looks like he has failed to take proper steps whilst at the post office. All of this stuff regarding not knowing the PO prosecuted people sounds like a made up story to try and establish some form of incompetence position.

[hidetheelephants]

vaud said:

Also there is a fundamental that in a relatively hot talent market, those with tech skills don't want to work for the civil service. Even where the govt has been creative and created arms length companies to allow them to pay market rate, they have not been successful. In a tight labour market the talent goes to those that can offer the right package (and it is more than just money) of experience, interesting projects and a range of clients to work with. Also the govt demands a certain scale and financial stability which narrows the pool of potential providers.

Isn't that rather the problem? The govt demanding things which aren't important for delivery of IT and ignoring those which are.

[540TORQUES]

L1OFF said:

Actually this is a very clever move, if you were the head of he CPS you would now be thinking if we dont prosecute a number of senior managers etc and the sub-postmaster take private criminal prosecutions (funded by an appeal, which I certainly would chuck a few bob into) and they get a conviction how bad does that reflect on the CPS?

Edited by L1OFF on Saturday 13th April 16:17

I doubt the CPS GAF.

[dmsims]

The Ponce methodology - a sure fire guarantee

hidetheelephants said:

The govt demanding things which aren't important for delivery of IT and ignoring those which are.

[vaud]

hidetheelephants said:

sn't that rather the problem? The govt demanding things which aren't important for delivery of IT and ignoring those which are.

Partly but it is a global issue and not specific to the UK.

[FiF]

Spotted this today which is a bit of a side issue of which wasn't aware.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/13/le...

It's about changes to rules around financial support for legal claims and limits on how much the funders can claim back from any award. To be debated in Lords on Monday, but pressure to quash as feared that it would remove SPM rights to revisit the agreement with Therium the funder.

Still think that if Alan Bates started a campaign to prosecute would have no trouble raising sufficient funds.

[skwdenyer]

540TORQUES said:

L1OFF said:

Actually this is a very clever move, if you were the head of he CPS you would now be thinking if we dont prosecute a number of senior managers etc and the sub-postmaster take private criminal prosecutions (funded by an appeal, which I certainly would chuck a few bob into) and they get a conviction how bad does that reflect on the CPS?

Edited by L1OFF on Saturday 13th April 16:17

I doubt the CPS GAF.

Also don’t forget CPS can by law take over and kill any private prosecution (and have frequently done so). But would they dare?!

[540TORQUES]

skwdenyer said:

Also don’t forget CPS can by law take over and kill any private prosecution (and have frequently done so). But would they dare?!

It's scandalous that they can do that.

[skwdenyer]

540TORQUES said:

skwdenyer said:

Also don’t forget CPS can by law take over and kill any private prosecution (and have frequently done so). But would they dare?!

It's scandalous that they can do that.

The British “system” is designed to protect the establishment. Once you accept that, other things make more sense.

[monkfish1]

skwdenyer said:

540TORQUES said:

skwdenyer said:

Also don’t forget CPS can by law take over and kill any private prosecution (and have frequently done so). But would they dare?!

It's scandalous that they can do that.

The British “system” is designed to protect the establishment. Once you accept that, other things make more sense.

Indeed. which is why we are where we are.

[pork911]

FiF said:

Spotted this today which is a bit of a side issue of which wasn't aware.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/13/le...

It's about changes to rules around financial support for legal claims and limits on how much the funders can claim back from any award. To be debated in Lords on Monday, but pressure to quash as feared that it would remove SPM rights to revisit the agreement with Therium the funder.

Still think that if Alan Bates started a campaign to prosecute would have no trouble raising sufficient funds.

Can the post office not prosecute those responsible?

[LimmerickLad]

pork911 said:

FiF said:

Spotted this today which is a bit of a side issue of which wasn't aware.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/13/le...

It's about changes to rules around financial support for legal claims and limits on how much the funders can claim back from any award. To be debated in Lords on Monday, but pressure to quash as feared that it would remove SPM rights to revisit the agreement with Therium the funder.

Still think that if Alan Bates started a campaign to prosecute would have no trouble raising sufficient funds.

Can the post office not prosecute those responsible?

Don't ask Cook and Crozier because they won't know the answer

[skwdenyer]

pork911 said:

FiF said:

Spotted this today which is a bit of a side issue of which wasn't aware.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/13/le...

It's about changes to rules around financial support for legal claims and limits on how much the funders can claim back from any award. To be debated in Lords on Monday, but pressure to quash as feared that it would remove SPM rights to revisit the agreement with Therium the funder.

Still think that if Alan Bates started a campaign to prosecute would have no trouble raising sufficient funds.

Can the post office not prosecute those responsible?

That would be an interesting strategy for a new CEO to adopt; perform a thorough volte face and attempt to clean up their own mess.

[Bonefish Blues]

David Miller (ex COO) giving notably straightforward answers to simple questions at the moment. Although he did strongly resile from a report involving him reportedly likening something to being as welcome as having a 15" bayonet shoved up his rear passage, I noted.

[Eric Mc]

Yes - listening to him at the moment. Refreshingly straight (unlike so many of the Post Office managers and inspectors who were interrogated in the previous sessions).

[Bonefish Blues]

Eric Mc said:

Yes - listening to him at the moment. Refreshingly straight (unlike so many of the Post Office managers and inspectors who were interrogated in the previous sessions).

I was struck by his explanation regarding why he, and others, hadn't noticed something regarding prosecutions - it was, in terms, to say 'well that was always how it was and had been and neither I nor anyone else had thought to question it'. I suspect that's the case for an awful lot of what we have heard.

[Eric Mc]

Agreed.

They didn't really question the "prosecutor, judge and jury" powers that the Post Office had/have. I expect they never gave it much thought.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Bonefish Blues said:

I was struck by his explanation regarding why he, and others, hadn't noticed something regarding prosecutions - it was, in terms, to say 'well that was always how it was and had been and neither I nor anyone else had thought to question it'. I suspect that's the case for an awful lot of what we have heard.

Fairly common in most large organizations to be fair ……”it’s the way we have always done it”

[vaud]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Fairly common in most large organizations to be fair ……”it’s the way we have always done it”

+ there are very few groups in a company charged with challenging the status quo. The supervisory board have a remit but their ability to probe is also predicated on the data quality they get and what they are presented by the executives.

[WrekinCrew]

skwdenyer said:

540TORQUES said:

L1OFF said:

Actually this is a very clever move, if you were the head of he CPS you would now be thinking if we dont prosecute a number of senior managers etc and the sub-postmaster take private criminal prosecutions (funded by an appeal, which I certainly would chuck a few bob into) and they get a conviction how bad does that reflect on the CPS?

Edited by L1OFF on Saturday 13th April 16:17

I doubt the CPS GAF.

Also don’t forget CPS can by law take over and kill any private prosecution (and have frequently done so). But would they dare?!

Not unilaterally - apparently hey have to be asked to by one side or the other. This is well worth a watch on the subject...