So, this post office palaver then

[GordyR]

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

***Facepalm***

You do not understand what is meant by "check the reliability of the evidence".

It means, is the source a reliable source? Is it circumstantial? Has process been followed?

Does the witness statement that the entire case rests upon have a history of perjuring themselves?

Is the evidence weak? On thin ground? Easy to dismiss in court? Is it likely enough to secure a conviction?

It does not mean, set up your own investigatory body and re-investigate the case to see if the Police or Post Office's evidence is complete and accurate, and all there is to know.

As @Sythe79 said:

There's a difference between checking evidence is reliable and ensuring there is enough reliable evidence.

You either do not understand that difference, or you do but don't care.

The investigatory body presenting the evidence were in the midst of a coverup and were withholding vital evidence from among other people, the CPS.

So for the third time...

What actual action, that was within their remit, do you want the CPS to have taken when presented with evidence that turned out to be strong enough to secure a conviction? Why can't you tell us?

 

[n111ck]

You are all literally just spewing out BS - what a waste of my time - consider yourselves schooled.

*laughing emoji*

 

[GordyR]

You are all literally just spewing out BS - what a waste of my time - consider yourselves schooled.

*laughing emoji*

You don't realise how silly you look do you?

For the fourth time...

What actual action, that was within their remit, do you want the CPS to have taken when presented with evidence that turned out to be strong enough to secure a conviction? Why can't you tell us?

 

[tonys]

You are all literally just spewing out BS - what a waste of my time - consider yourselves schooled.

*laughing emoji*

What school did you go to? Infants?
My 6yr old granddaughter has a better grasp on reality than you

 

[Maccy]

I would give up @GordyR

 

[GordyR]

You're right, I'm sorry. I've allowed this to go on far too long.

Let's just move on. Even if it's just for the sake of my own sanity.

 

[Uther]

You don't realise how silly you look do you?

For the fourth time...

What actual action, that was within their remit, do you want the CPS to have taken when presented with evidence that turned out to be strong enough to secure a conviction? Why can't you tell us?

Have you not twigged yet by all his constant laughing emojis to every question that he's just trolling people for his own amusement.
Everything is always Labours fault apparently.

 

[Sythe79]

You don't realise how silly you look do you?

For the fourth time...

What actual action, that was within their remit, do you want the CPS to have taken when presented with evidence that turned out to be strong enough to secure a conviction? Why can't you tell us?

There are certainly questions around why the CPS took on certain cases and how they were referred to them,

But some point scoring madness because team Tory is currently bottom of the league and someone doesn't have the emotional intelligence to deal with it very well is all a bit sick and disrespectful to the victims, so I'm out you deal with him

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

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.

I didn't say what you accuse.

I have said all along, and this may give you a clue, that they need to decide on the charges.
As part of deciding the charges they would need to for example check the evidence supports a murder charge, or if they would need to drop that to manslaughter.

The CPS no not however go back and check all the evidence. They assess the evidence provided and work out if that supports a conviction, and if so what conviction.

They are taking on face value the evidence in front of them is accurate. Baring a silly omission etc their review is what does this say, what sort of charge does it support, what are the chances of a jury believing this information.

In the case of the post office, they were provided proof by so called experts

 

[tonys]

Have you not twigged yet by all his constant laughing emojis to every question that he's just trolling people for his own amusement.
Everything is always Labours fault apparently.

Little things please little minds

 

[Maccy]

Have you not twigged yet by all his constant laughing emojis to every question that he's just trolling people for his own amusement.
Everything is always Labours fault apparently.

This guy is on to something

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Little things please little minds

you mean slogans like "stop the boats"

 

[Diddums]

You're right, I'm sorry. I've allowed this to go on far too long.

Let's just move on. Even if it's just for the sake of my own sanity.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What happened to the missing funds? Presumably these would have gone into various post office accounts that would ultimately have some sort of paper trail taking them outside of the Fujitsu loop.

There wasn't any missing funds, the bug was adding to to the deficit and it even happened while one of them was asking for advice from the Horizon Helpdesk.
When the helpdesk told her to do something the defecit doubled.
The awful thing is Fujitsu knew this was happening but covered it up and I presume told lies to the investigation teams who were interviewing the Postmasters..

 

[Jamauk]

There wasn't any missing funds, the bug was adding to to the deficit and it even happened while one of them was asking for advice from the Horizon Helpdesk.
When the helpdesk told her to do something the defecit doubled.
The awful thing is Fujitsu knew this was happening but covered it up and I presume told lies to the investigation teams who were interviewing the Postmasters..

I've just seen the ITV series, I think it was on episode 4 when the same question was asked. The funds that were repaid by the Postmasters put into an account and later being moved to show as profits.

I'm amazed at how the post office got away with it for so long. Being difficult, covering things up, and essentially bribing some of the postmasters giving evidence into keeping quiet. The downside is how it will impact the current taxpayer, but the impact this had on the postmasters far outweighs this and no amount of compensation can make up for these deliberate wrongdoings.

 

[jpaul]

missing funds question is stiill open - think about it

where did the system say these monies that were missing had come from ? deposits over the counter ? sales of products (like stamps) ... all of which could be checked : till rolls, client accounts ....
no cctv presumably.

 

[Werewolf]

Just watching a video and apparently it turns out the Post Office lied to their own retained Barrister who was prosecuting the case for them, so that he would tell the court the post office didn't have a report that the defence asked for.

So by the sounds of basically no one outside of the actual employment of the post office at the senior levels involved in these cases, not even their own external legal representation in court were being told the truth, presumably because the post office management knew that any honest lawyer who was acting withing their required remit would have refused to go ahead.

 

[Jokester]

I'm optimistically thinking this could actually lead to perverting the course of justice charges for the executives involved.

 

[Azza]

Christ on a bike.

The Post Office’s own tax disaster

The Post Office has claimed a £934m tax deduction for its compensation payments to the victims of the Post Office scandal. That’s outrageous – and also unlawful. The consequence is that the Post…

www.taxpolicy.org.uk

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

TLDR;

The Post Office unlawfully claimed £934m tax relief for its compensation payments, and now faces an unexpected £100m tax bill.

 

[Werewolf]

I'm optimistically thinking this could actually lead to perverting the course of justice charges for the executives involved.

I would hope so, by the sounds of it there were people that set out very deliberately to pervert the course of justice and massively abused not only their position of power, but the position of trust that they had given to them by the Crown in order to do so.