Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
119 said:
Beyond belief really.119 said:
Hopefully the enquiry is nimble enough to be able to add new witnesses as evidence emerges, the BBC saying one or more of those named isn't so far scheduled to appear.Hammersia said:
119 said:
Hopefully the enquiry is nimble enough to be able to add new witnesses as evidence emerges, the BBC saying one or more of those named isn't so far scheduled to appear.When Vennells appears they are going to wipe the floor with her, no doubt she'll try and say she's too ill to attend when the time comes.
Prolex-UK said:
119 said:
Beyond belief really.Wills2 said:
There has to be jail time for these people it's beyond the pale now, just who do they think they are, anyone who stood in court saying the system worked has committed perjury.
When Vennells appears they are going to wipe the floor with her, no doubt she'll try and say she's too ill to attend when the time comes.
She'll have a range of pitiful excuses, mostly excused by religion, forgetfulness - or that it must have been someone else's responsibility.When Vennells appears they are going to wipe the floor with her, no doubt she'll try and say she's too ill to attend when the time comes.
Vasco said:
Wills2 said:
There has to be jail time for these people it's beyond the pale now, just who do they think they are, anyone who stood in court saying the system worked has committed perjury.
When Vennells appears they are going to wipe the floor with her, no doubt she'll try and say she's too ill to attend when the time comes.
She'll have a range of pitiful excuses, mostly excused by religion, forgetfulness - or that it must have been someone else's responsibility.When Vennells appears they are going to wipe the floor with her, no doubt she'll try and say she's too ill to attend when the time comes.
119 said:
From that article - It would seem as though the barrister representing the SPM's kicked the ball into touch."But in June 2016, when sub-postmasters launched their legal action, the government was told through Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the investigation had been scrapped on "very strong advice" from the senior barrister representing them."
"There is no evidence in the documents that then-prime minister David Cameron knew about the investigation or that it had been ditched."
andyA700 said:
119 said:
From that article - It would seem as though the barrister representing the SPM's kicked the ball into touch."But in June 2016, when sub-postmasters launched their legal action, the government was told through Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the investigation had been scrapped on "very strong advice" from the senior barrister representing them."
"There is no evidence in the documents that then-prime minister David Cameron knew about the investigation or that it had been ditched."
The BBC are insinuating it was Camerons fault but then go on to say he was probably not even aware.
s
t stirring headlines at its finest.andyA700 said:
From that article - It would seem as though the barrister representing the SPM's kicked the ball into touch.
"But in June 2016, when sub-postmasters launched their legal action, the government was told through Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the investigation had been scrapped on "very strong advice" from the senior barrister representing them."
"There is no evidence in the documents that then-prime minister David Cameron knew about the investigation or that it had been ditched."
I noticed that as well, there’s no reason for Cameron to be mentioned at all in the story other than to frame what era it happened in, there certainly doesn’t seem to be any justification for the amount of prominence he has in the article."But in June 2016, when sub-postmasters launched their legal action, the government was told through Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the investigation had been scrapped on "very strong advice" from the senior barrister representing them."
"There is no evidence in the documents that then-prime minister David Cameron knew about the investigation or that it had been ditched."
andyA700 said:
From that article - It would seem as though the barrister representing the SPM's kicked the ball into touch.
"But in June 2016, when sub-postmasters launched their legal action, the government was told through Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the investigation had been scrapped on "very strong advice" from the senior barrister representing them."
"There is no evidence in the documents that then-prime minister David Cameron knew about the investigation or that it had been ditched."
No, the PO chairman kicked it into touch on advice from his legal team."But in June 2016, when sub-postmasters launched their legal action, the government was told through Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the investigation had been scrapped on "very strong advice" from the senior barrister representing them."
"There is no evidence in the documents that then-prime minister David Cameron knew about the investigation or that it had been ditched."
The SPM didn't even know the investigation was ongoing, it was not disclosed to them.
So Fujitsu not only entered the SPM accounts, ‘correcting’ balances and adding transactions, but were also able to create new digital signatures which were used to prove that the accounts could not have been altered.
That’s more than simply changing data. That’s covering your tracks. That’s all sorts of other criminal activity surely.
We have to know whether this was done under the direction and knowledge of the Post Office management, or whether it was just done by the supplier alone and not reported. And if it’s the supplier only, we have to know who was giving the order to do that.
That’s more than simply changing data. That’s covering your tracks. That’s all sorts of other criminal activity surely.
We have to know whether this was done under the direction and knowledge of the Post Office management, or whether it was just done by the supplier alone and not reported. And if it’s the supplier only, we have to know who was giving the order to do that.
TTmonkey said:
So Fujitsu not only entered the SPM accounts, ‘correcting’ balances and adding transactions, but were also able to create new digital signatures which were used to prove that the accounts could not have been altered.
That’s more than simply changing data. That’s covering your tracks. That’s all sorts of other criminal activity surely.
We have to know whether this was done under the direction and knowledge of the Post Office management, or whether it was just done by the supplier alone and not reported. And if it’s the supplier only, we have to know who was giving the order to do that.
Isn't shizz like this covered by misuse of communications offenses? That’s more than simply changing data. That’s covering your tracks. That’s all sorts of other criminal activity surely.
We have to know whether this was done under the direction and knowledge of the Post Office management, or whether it was just done by the supplier alone and not reported. And if it’s the supplier only, we have to know who was giving the order to do that.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff