So, this post office palaver then

JonRGV250 said:
*snip Xitter*
Click to expand...

Which of these are "trivial issues"? As stated in the post I quoting?

edit Looking through some of those, now I'm at my PC instead of squinting at the screen of my phone. It's mostly Boris' lies, of course, but then you've got people like Kwarteng and Hancock who were widely seen as right to resign - I suspect you could find the Mail itself calling for the same - and then most of the rest are "if... then..." statements. Serious breaches of the ministerial code are resigning matters are they not? Breaching lockdown rules was widely seen as a resigning matter at the time, etc.

In fact, the only one I can see that I think might cross the line into trivial is the call for Mark Field to resign over tackling a protestor who invaded a dinner.
 
Last edited:
I think solicitors like sirmister ed have the word sorry medically removed from their vocabulary -
was waiting for my conveyancing solicitor to apologise for wasting my time last week, too.

Is there genuinely a legal precedent that the word is self incriminating without recourse.
 
Jamauk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I replied to somebody asking where did the missing money come from - go to, and there wasn't any missing money, it was a bug.
The money that the Postmasters wrongfully paid back which wasn't missing went to the Post Office and went towards their profits.
 
jpaul said:
I think solicitors like sirmister ed have the word sorry medically removed from their vocabulary -
was waiting for my conveyancing solicitor to apologise for wasting my time last week, too.

Is there genuinely a legal precedent that the word is self incriminating without recourse.
Click to expand...
It used to be law that saying sorry, even if you only meant to express empathy, was admissible in court as an admission of guilt. This is why boomers were taught never to apologise if involved in a car crash.

In Scotland this was changed in 2016 (if I remember correctly) however I am unsure if it still stands in England and Wales.
 
Minusorange said:
Just say the word ffs

The one thing in all of this scandal that ****** me off, why didn't anyone actually pause for a minute and wonder why so many Post Masters were supposedly stealing money while declaring that supposed theft in their shortfalls ?
Click to expand...
Probably because their software was designed to detect 'fraud' and hey presto they found loads of it so it was doing it's job, so no doubts were needed.


To question it would have required more intelligence than most of these managers have shown.
 
Last edited:
tonys said:
Probably because their software was designed to detect 'fraud' and hey presto they found loads of it so it was doing it's job, so no doubts were needed.
Click to expand...

I find it unbelievable that the Post Office Legal Team didn't question a massive amount of fraud cases compared to what they usually got.
I still find it unbelievable that they would think "Well we've had a new software so it must be right".
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I find it unbelievable that the Post Office Legal Team didn't question a massive amount of fraud cases compared to what they usually got.
I still find it unbelievable that they would think "Well we've had a new software so it must be right".
Click to expand...
From the TV programme that seems to have been what they were told
 
Mr Jack said:
I suspect they thought that their new system was finally detecting fraud that had missed before.
Click to expand...

At the moment there are 6,270 Postmasters and I suspect, unless a lot of new Post Offices have been built, that number has been there for a long time.
When you suddenly get 100s of fraud cases somebody should should say "What's going on?".
We have 11,000 staff and if the same type of case came into our department on a regular basis we'd be asking questions and it wouldn't take 700 or so.
eg Over the last 13 years I know of 5 staff who have been found guilty of fraud (illegally filling in time sheets) but if all of a sudden we got 5 in a month and staff vehemently denying it we'd have to ask questions.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
At the moment there are 6,270 Postmasters and I suspect, unless a lot of new Post Offices have been built, that number has been there for a long time.
When you suddenly get 100s of fraud cases somebody should should say "What's going on?".
We have 11,000 staff and if the same type of case came into our department on a regular basis we'd be asking questions and it wouldn't take 700 or so.
eg Over the last 13 years I know of 5 staff who have been found guilty of fraud (illegally filling in time sheets) but if all of a sudden we got 5 in a month and staff vehemently denying it we'd have to ask questions.
Click to expand...
The trouble was they were done as individual cases over the whole country probably by different people over time so no-one took any notice. Plus the Post Office kept saying the software wasn't at fault.
 
tonys said:
The trouble was they were done as individual cases over the whole country probably by different people over time so no-one took any notice. Plus the Post Office kept saying the software wasn't at fault.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, I'm thinking it's one headquarters that were doing it all.
Every Trust has it's own Legal Department and like everything else data doesn't get shared.
So if it is multiple places all over the country then it might not be that suspicious.
It will all come out in the wash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom