So, this post office palaver then

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Your logic only applies if you believe that public figures hold no accountability for the departments they lead. Does the buck stop at the top or not?

The last thing I want is Starmer standing down - he needs to stay EXACTLY where he is

I think when there has been a massive issue (and it certainly wasn't WITHIN THE CPS) then people should apologise yes.
Frankly as far as most of us can tell the CPS did nothing wrong based on what they were given.
Now you could come along and review that data sure. But that needs a completely different investigation.

I frankly don't believe you in regards SKS. With your posting history and your current postings I cannot believe for one minute you would not be calling for him to go.
I do not doubt for the same minute that if there was enough pressure on SKS to resign, or he actually did for this issue that EOTHO Rishi would call the election.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So who exactly should be preventing this sort of thing from happening if not the CPS?

Either,
the party who gathered the evidences own controls (so normally the police, but in this case the PO)
or, the jury who see the same evidence as the CPS

 

[Toekiller]

So what is the punishment for knowingly and deliberately sending innocent people to prison? Personally I feel this is almost as bad as murder. Lives have been destroyed, people have lost their lives. Are there plans to start a full investigation to find the people behind all of this and to prosecute?

Watch the 2022 Panorama program. https://account.bbc.com/account/pro...ode/m0016t20/panorama-the-post-office-scandal.

It's utterly disgusting.

 

[n111ck]

I think when there has been a massive issue (and it certainly wasn't WITHIN THE CPS) then people should apologise yes.
Frankly as far as most of us can tell the CPS did nothing wrong based on what they were given.
Now you could come along and review that data sure. But that needs a completely different investigation.

I frankly don't believe you in regards SKS. With your posting history and your current postings I cannot believe for one minute you would not be calling for him to go.
I do not doubt for the same minute that if there was enough pressure on SKS to resign, or he actually did for this issue that EOTHO Rishi would call the election.

I suspect over the coming weeks your irrationally quick defence of the CPS will really fall apart.. we'll see..

I couldn't care less what you believe - Starmer is the perfect leader for Labour and must stay in place.

 

[n111ck]

Either,
the party who gathered the evidences own controls (so normally the police, but in this case the PO)
or, the jury who see the same evidence as the CPS

Wow blaming the jury now - new low.

 

[Freakbro]

The thing is, as horrible as that is, all most posters on here seem to care about is keeping their favourite politician out of the firing line.

The irony of this coming from the biggest Boris cheerleader is hilarious!

Just another day in the clown world Telegraph induced reality n111ck inhabits

 

[n111ck]

The irony of this coming from the biggest Boris cheerleader is hilarious!

Just another day in the clown world Telegraph induced reality n111ck inhabits

Lol trying to link Boris to this is getting desperate.

edit - @Freakbro yeah I thought it was funny too - you joker lol..

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Wow blaming the jury now - new low.

They jury are using the same information as the CPS. The CPs simply presents the evidence as given to them. (not necessarily in its entirity)
If the jury were convinced then it supports the position of the CPS that it appeared there was guilt.

I am not "blaming" the jury.
I am saying there are two check points in regards our process in answer to your ranting question. The internal mechanism of the party who is presenting the "file" to the CPS.
And the jury who are reviewing the case to see if they also agree that the evidence presented shows guilt.

The CPS role is to take the evidence, review it, decide if they believe a conviction is likely, if so decide on exact charges to be laid, and then present that in court.
Exactly where in that process do you believe the CPS failed?

 

[n111ck]

They jury are using the same information as the CPS. The CPs simply presents the evidence as given to them. (not necessarily in its entirity)
If the jury were convinced then it supports the position of the CPS that it appeared there was guilt.

I am not "blaming" the jury.
I am saying there are two check points in regards our process in answer to your ranting question. The internal mechanism of the party who is presenting the "file" to the CPS.
And the jury who are reviewing the case to see if they also agree that the evidence presented shows guilt.

The CPS role is to take the evidence, review it, decide if they believe a conviction is likely, if so decide on exact charges to be laid, and then present that in court.
Exactly where in that process do you believe the CPS failed?

So the CPS are not responsible for ensuring that evidence is reliable? They just present what they are given?

 

[Sinbad2000]

Lol trying to link Boris to this is getting desperate.

haha the irony. My post regarding the threat to immigration status had absolutely nothing to do with any politician. You immediately jumped on it as part of your campaign to smear Starmer and/or any other politician you don't have a hard-on for.
So who's desperate now?

 

[Dr Jack]

Lol trying to link Boris to this is getting desperate.

Wasn't it known by the the time that Boris took charge that there were systematic problems with these convictions? What did he do as PM to address the issue?

 

[Maccy]

Try and be civil to each other guys, otherwise it's holiday time.

 

[Werewolf]

So the CPS are not responsible for ensuring that evidence is reliable? They just present what they are given?

How do you expect the CPS to check the evidence is reliable, when the evidence is being presented by people who are under a high duty to only present reliable evidence (and swear that it is so, with the lawyers involved at risk of not only disbarment but potentially jail) and the CPS has no way of independently checking the evidence?

The CPS review the evidence to make sure there is a reasonable chance of success in the prosecution, but they have no way of actually examining the systems involved in finding that evidence, they also don't run their own DNA and fingerprint labs, or computer forensics for other cases, they rely on the evidence being obtained properly and the severe penalties for if it's not.

There very good reasons why what the Post Office has done in these cases is normally dealt with very harshly and why the default result when this sort of dishonesty comes out is that the cases are either overturned or reviewed with the new information in mind.

The Post Office acted in a way that is almost unheard of for a single organisation in the UK, it was a very systematic version of the coppers in the 70's who would very carefully make the evidence fit what they wanted to ensure the suspect they wanted ended up in jail (and ignoring anything that went against that). Pace and the other changes in the late 80's through 00's were very specifically meant to stop that happening, and seem to have worked in other organisations, but the Post Office seem to have deliberately set out to ignore them (which in itself makes every case involving the post office suspect now).

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So the CPS are not responsible for ensuring that evidence is reliable? They just present what they are given?

Yes they are.

They will for sure look at the evidence the source, and very importantly the assumed status of the person presenting the evidence.
A world famous lab providing DNA proof would hold more weight than one they have never seen before.
Statements from acting police hold more weight than some connected party to the defendant

Etc etc

IE the system assumes the evidence presented to the CPS is valid.
The role of the investigator is to do that to the best of their ability, the CPS to check its reasonable.

I mean its an argument we should push the burden of proof higher on the CPS, but it will cost more and take longer.
People seem to simultaneously have an issue that for example people like Russell Brand are not in court the day after they are charged.
The more reviews you undertake, the more cost and time it takes.

 

[Dr Jack]

I mean its an argument we should push the burden of proof higher on the CPS, but it will cost more and take longer.

Also, at some point, the CPS start stepping onto the ground that should be the courts jurisdiction. The CPS isn't there to make findings on the facts of a case.

In any case, weren't the small number of cases where the CPS involved ones where it wasn't just a matter of Horizon but where the case was based on other factors that meant it fell outside the Post Office's own internal remit. Do we know how many, if any, of these cases were actually dependent on the faulty presumption of accuracy regarding the Horizon system?

 

[dowie]

I agree with both of those points.

Fair enough.

Got to agree, Fujitsu did not prosecute anyone here, they may have made some really buggy software, that their customer should not have rolled out, but they were not the ones obfuscating the evidence in the private prosecutions that the PO brought

To be fair there is a potential issue with one or two employees of Fujitsu, the senior engineer/architect person acting as an expert witness for example.

 

[Toekiller]

There must have been people at Fushitzu who knew people were being prosecuted based on their crappy software. They need to be sent down for this as well.

 

[n111ck]

Yes they are.

They will for sure look at the evidence the source, and very importantly the assumed status of the person presenting the evidence.
A world famous lab providing DNA proof would hold more weight than one they have never seen before.
Statements from acting police hold more weight than some connected party to the defendant

Etc etc

IE the system assumes the evidence presented to the CPS is valid.
The role of the investigator is to do that to the best of their ability, the CPS to check its reasonable.

I mean its an argument we should push the burden of proof higher on the CPS, but it will cost more and take longer.
People seem to simultaneously have an issue that for example people like Russell Brand are not in court the day after they are charged.
The more reviews you undertake, the more cost and time it takes.

Well that contradicts your earlier post where you said they just present the evidence as given - but we'll put that aside.

So if they are responsible and accountable for ensuring the evidence is reliable and that evidence is later shown to be unreliable are they not still accountable and responsible for that failure? Because if they are not then they aren't really accountable and responsible in the first place.

What evidence were they given that you find was so compelling that you are willing to defend the CPS without question?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Also, at some point, the CPS start stepping onto the ground that should be the courts jurisdiction. The CPS isn't there to make findings on the facts of a case.

In any case, weren't the small number of cases where the CPS involved ones where it wasn't just a matter of Horizon but where the case was based on other factors that meant it fell outside the Post Office's own internal remit. Do we know how many, if any, of these cases were actually dependent on the faulty presumption of accuracy regarding the Horizon system?

Indeed fully agree. I mean there is a reason we have duties and segregation.

I am not sure in regards other issues, but I have speculated recently that its the only reason I can think of. That there were other things uncovered during the post office investigation that they could not prosecute but they felt that the CPS should be aware of.
Say if they uncovered insurance fraud at the same time. I suspect, but its just a personal view, that those cases may well actually stand up to more scrutiny than ones that the post office alone worked on.
I could be of course barking up the wrong tree, but if so, why were some cases referred...

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Well that contradicts your earlier post where you said they just present the evidence as given - but we'll put that aside.

So if they are responsible and accountable for ensuring the evidence is reliable and that evidence is later shown to be unreliable are they not still accountable and responsible for that failure? Because if they are not then they aren't really accountable and responsible in the first place.

What evidence were they given that you find was so compelling that are you willing to defend the CPS without question?

Jesus talk about misrepresentation. Its not contradiction to summarise the main duty and then because someone is playing dumb, have to expand the comment further.
I further broke down in order to try to get to the crux of what your trying to say and question as you seem very confused as to what the CPS undertakes.

Sometimes in past miscarriages of justice some fingers are pointed at the CPS, but generally when there are cases of made up/false evidence the target, rightly, moves back to those presenting it.

I am NOT defending the CPS without question, again do not try to lower me to your base level of everything being some simple binary topic/state. I am saying that on balance of probability, and history will confirm this, the majority of the cases the CPS undertakes are not dismissed because of lack of evidence/robust evidence.
In fact most argument is the opposite that they quite quickly dismiss potential prosecution based on not having almost certain victory in sight. See rape cases in recent years.
If an organisation has a long and detailed history (as evidenced by limited amounts of false convictions within our system, especially ones that THEY were at fault for) then I will go with that evidence of a department far more likely than not having met the standards and expectations that any REASONABLE person would place on them.