So, this post office palaver then

Hades said:
I'm not sure how they can do that with accuracy. The issue seemed to span late 90's through to around 2015/2016? Even 2016 is almost seven years ago. Most data is kept for regulatory purposes for seven years (I used to work with external IT auditors for a couple of banks). So a lot of the evidence in the form of scanned documents and emails will be gone already. I may even be tempted to suspect the seven year timing of the enquiry isn't entirely coincidental.
Click to expand...
I saw the guy saying that they didn't have the records.

And my immediate thought was, that's extremely convienient that they've no longer got the very information used in legal proceedings to persecute people and ruin them, right at the time when you know you're finally going to have to admit wrong doing and start to make good on it.

I would have assumed, that legally speaking the moment there is any query on a record it is kept, and that anything used in litigation, especially a prosecution should be maintained for a lot longer than basic accounting requirements.

I would be tempted to say that if the post office can't prove otherwise, then anything the victims can show should be taken as gospel, and multiplied (to help cover anything they no longer have documented), then a huge lump sum on top of that based partly on how long it has taken to sort it, and if that person had spent any time in jail it is again multiplied.

Make it really hurt for the company and make it extremely clear that this is what happens when as a company you pervert the course of justice and misuse the courts to ruin people.
 
Last edited:
I rather suspect that no individual will end up on the hook for this after the inquiry is conducted. There will be a finding of systemic failure, recommendations for how to prevent it happening again, including recommendations for how computer information is presented and assessed in court, and that will be it.
 
Werewolf said:
I saw the guy saying that they didn't have the records.

And my immediate thought was, that's extremely convienient that they've no longer got the very information used in legal proceedings to persecute people and ruin them, right at the time when you know you're finally going to have to admit wrong doing and start to make good on it.

I would have assumed, that legally speaking the moment there is any query on a record it is kept, and that anything used in litigation, especially a prosecution should be maintained for a lot longer than basic accounting requirements.

I would be tempted to say that if the post office can't prove otherwise, then anything the victims can show should be taken as gospel, and multiplied (to help cover anything they no longer have documented), then a huge lump sum on top of that based partly on how long it has taken to sort it, and if that person had spent any time in jail it is again multiplied.

Make it really hurt for the company and make it extremely clear that this is what happens when as a company you pervert the course of justice and misuse the courts to ruin people.
Click to expand...
Yes, from my experience, any documents used in litigation are classified as "Do Not Destroy". I'm not sure what happens after litigation is concluded.
 
AndyCr15 said:
Well, there are almost 3,000 Tesco's in the UK, I would imagine they average more than 4 tills/terminals in a store, no?
Click to expand...
While we can't necessarily believe any figures that come out of the Post Office:


With 11,500 branches, the Post Office is the largest retail network in the UK and Payzone Bill Payments Limited, owned by Post
Office, has approximately 13,000 payment outlets in the UK. Together, the two networks provide over 24,000 locations at which
customers can pay their household bills quickly and conveniently.
Click to expand...

But knowing the Post Office this could be a random made up figure which changes every time you refresh the screen.
 
MCFC_ANDY said:
missed the end, by any chance did either of them manage to actually to answer a question in the end
Click to expand...

Due to work wasn't able to watch any today. Hopefully they were more credible than that Post Office investigator who came across as being a nasty piece of work. Although I do believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I sincerely doubt that relevant evidence was lost or destroyed by accident here. It should be straightforward to establish who was in charge of what at the time the Post Office (and Fujitsu) were lying in court etc. If they can't prove there was some exceptional reason why the people calling the shots and signing off on those lies were somehow acting in good faith and not responsible, then appropriate punishment they should face.
 
Werewolf said:
I saw the guy saying that they didn't have the records.

And my immediate thought was, that's extremely convienient that they've no longer got the very information used in legal proceedings to persecute people and ruin them, right at the time when you know you're finally going to have to admit wrong doing and start to make good on it.

I would have assumed, that legally speaking the moment there is any query on a record it is kept, and that anything used in litigation, especially a prosecution should be maintained for a lot longer than basic accounting requirements.

I would be tempted to say that if the post office can't prove otherwise, then anything the victims can show should be taken as gospel, and multiplied (to help cover anything they no longer have documented), then a huge lump sum on top of that based partly on how long it has taken to sort it, and if that person had spent any time in jail it is again multiplied.

Make it really hurt for the company and make it extremely clear that this is what happens when as a company you pervert the course of justice and misuse the courts to ruin people.
Click to expand...
The money due from the Post Office will ultimately come from us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom