So, this post office palaver then

If it were re-tried today maybe should be like some fraud cases where there is no jury - because the case is too complex -
did the jury really understand the fallibility of software systems - post covid / nhs / princess elizabeth line perhaps they'd have more idea.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
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.
Click to expand...


There is a big difference between just presenting something and confirming it's actually reliable. You made a mistake - own it - I won't expect an apology because you don't believe in them lol.

You are defending the CPS without question because they presented evidence as reliable that was entirely manufactured - they couldn't get it any more wrong and yet still you defend them. Whether that is normal for them or not isn't really relevant to this particular thread. It's this sort of buck passing that enables these sorts of scandals. Yes Fujutsi and PO are primarily to blame but there has clearly been a massive failure in the legal system too.
 
Also are we really supposed to accept that the CPS was hood winked by some arse covering exec's at the PO and that's ok because reasons..

How do they possibly cope with career criminals, terrorists and organised crime groups?

The more people try and defend them the worse they look..
 
n111ck said:
Also are we really supposed to accept that the CPS was hood winked by some arse covering exec's at the PO and that's ok because reasons..

How do they possibly cope with career criminals, terrorists and organised crime groups?

The more people try and defend them the worse they look..
Click to expand...

Perhaps they assumed that a massive institution like the post office are not like career criminals, terrorists and organised crime groups and wouldn't try to do something like that...
 
Good grief.

Please just put us out of our misery and answer this question:

GordyR said:
Perhaps @n111ck would be kind enough to specify precisely what action he would like to have seen Keir Starmer take at the time, as the head of the CPS.

What action could he, or should he have taken, that would have avoided the need for an apology in @n111ck's eyes?

Baring in mind of course that he wasn't in possession of a crystal ball, and so was not aware that the evidence the Post Office had presented to the CPS prosecutors (which let's not forget, was also strong enough to convince a jury) was fraudulent.
Click to expand...

If you're so confident that what you say it correct, then it should be trivial for you to describe a very specific action that you think should have been taken by the CPS; one that comes under their remit and would have been within their ability to complete.

What is it? What is it you think they should have done when they were handed evidence that as presented, was clearly strong enough to secure convictions once put to a jury?

Do you think that the CPS should have completely dropped their entire remit, and out of no where, just for this case, randomly set up a special investigatory unit themselves in order to confirm the veracity of the evidence presented by the Post Office? Is that what it is? Seriously? Honestly, it's almost as if you're detaching yourself further and further from reality with each passing comment.

So come on, what is it @n111ck? What should they have done? What should Keir Starmer have done? And how should they and he have known that they needed to do it?
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
Also are we really supposed to accept that the CPS was hood winked by some arse covering exec's at the PO and that's ok because reasons..

How do they possibly cope with career criminals, terrorists and organised crime groups?

The more people try and defend them the worse they look..
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what the CPS are or do, the more interesting question is WHY the CPS took on some of these cases. Did the P.O refer these and only these cases to the police? and why?, or did the CPS take an interest in just these cases and decide to take them over?

the fact is, anyone can take anyone else to criminal court for anything.... if you have the money, and that's generally a good thing.

So far, there's clearly blame towards the P.O and some very dodgy judges not doing their jobs properly, along with 20 years of politicians turning a blind eye. IF you think this was all Starmer then find the evidence and the cash and take him to court, it's your right, no duty as an Englishman
 
Sythe79 said:
I don't think you understand what the CPS are or do, the more interesting question is WHY the CPS took on some of these cases. Did the P.O refer these and only these cases to the police? and why?, or did the CPS take an interest in just these cases and decide to take them over?

the fact is, anyone can take anyone else to criminal court for anything.... if you have the money, and that's generally a good thing.

So far, there's clearly blame towards the P.O and some very dodgy judges not doing their jobs properly, along with 20 years of politicians turning a blind eye. IF you think this was all Starmer then find the evidence and the cash and take him to court, it's your right, no duty as an Englishman
Click to expand...


Is the CPS responsible and accountable for ensuring evidence is reliable - yes or no?

Also you have a lot of questions there that haven't been answered in this thread yet certain people are 100% sure that the CPS is not at fault.. more assumptions?
 
I say we drag this ****** in and slap him about till he start talking...aint see that ******* deliver one letter ever.
postman-pat.jpg
 
n111ck said:
Is the CPS responsible and accountable for ensuring evidence is reliable - yes or no?

Also you have a lot of questions there that haven't been answered in this thread yet certain people are 100% sure that the CPS is not at fault.. more assumptions?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between checking evidence is reliable and ensuring there is enough reliable evidence. As a rule no, the CPS aren't there to check on the reliability of the evidence because 99.9999999% of cases referred to them are by the Police and to a certain extent that is their job.
 
n111ck said:
Is the CPS responsible and accountable for ensuring evidence is reliable - yes or no?

Also you have a lot of questions there that haven't been answered in this thread yet certain people are 100% sure that the CPS is not at fault.. more assumptions?
Click to expand...
The system relies on evidence being given to them to assess wether it is enough to prosecute. If the evidence is hand picked to show a certain bias, then if they don't do investigations how are they to know? Like others have said getting them to investigate whether the evidence is correct would add another layer of complexity and time to a system that is on its knees due to the numerous points of law that they have to adhere to.
 
Mr Jack said:
What part of this has been judges not doing their jobs properly? Findings of fact in the British system are made by juries not judges.
Click to expand...
Because it is the judiciaries job as a whole to ensure justice is done, There were far too many cases for it not to have raised eyebrows and from reports they were far too willing to allow the P.O a free ride in the courts
 
Sythe79 said:
There's a difference between checking evidence is reliable and ensuring there is enough reliable evidence.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It is not the job of the CPS to double handle and repeat the investigations of the Police or any other investigatory unit.

The idea is totally ridiculous in every way. Could you imagine the cost?

Their job is to ensure that the evidence provided by these units meets a threshold that is high enough to secure a conviction; it was, and it did.

I really do not understand how anyone could expect the CPS to have known that the Post Office were engaged in a coverup, and only presenting that which they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
Sythe79 said:
There's a difference between checking evidence is reliable and ensuring there is enough reliable evidence. As a rule no, the CPS aren't there to check on the reliability of the evidence because 99.9999999% of cases referred to them are by the Police and to a certain extent that is their job.
Click to expand...


If they are not there to "check on the reliability of the evidence" then why does it say "They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable." on their own website? To make it worse that statement is actually from the 'Principles' section lol

The principles we follow | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

Case closed, mic drop... you can't handle the truth etc etc :D
 
n111ck said:
If they are not there to "check on the reliability of the evidence" then why does it say "They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable." on their own website? To make it worse that statement is actually from the 'Principles' section lol

The principles we follow | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

Case closed, mic drop... you can't handle the truth etc etc :D
Click to expand...
Maybe the CPS need to do a Cbeebies episode on what they do for their website, consider is not investigate.

They might check a witness statement has been signed correctly, otherwise it isn't reliable evidence

They might check the chain of custody for that bloody knife is complete and correct, otherwise it isn't reliable evidence.

They might even come to the conclusion that even tho the police have 10 signed eyewitness statements from OC UK forum members that Keir Starmer is the devil himself that the posting history of these witnesses might be problematic in a court setting.................. so not reliable evidence.
 
Sythe79 said:
Maybe the CPS need to do a Cbeebies episode on what they do for their website, consider is not investigate.

They might check a witness statement has been signed correctly, otherwise it isn't reliable evidence

They might check the chain of custody for that bloody knife is complete and correct, otherwise it isn't reliable evidence.

They might even come to the conclusion that even tho the police have 10 signed eyewitness statements from OC UK forum members that Keir Starmer is the devil himself that the posting history of these witnesses might be problematic in a court setting.................. so not reliable evidence.
Click to expand...


What I'm hearing repeatedly is might, maybes and assumptions and now arguments over the veracity of the CPS's own website.

I think we can all be glad that none of you hold any position or power or responsibility. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom