mangocrazy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:25 pm
Part of the problem was the historical powers that the Royal Mail inherited from centuries ago, when they has to deal with Highwaymen robbing the Mail wagons. So they have their own internal Police Force and their in-house ability to prosecute, by-passing the checks that the Crown Prosecution Service would (hopefully) provide (as Scootabout mentions.
Basically the RM's ability to prosecute needs to be entirely removed and all such prosecutions handled by the CPS. Also the powers of their investigative arm needs to be drastically reduced such that they can make initial inquiries, but then have to hand over to the Police force to make further investigation and to decide if to refer to the CPS.
Errr...Royal Mail ain't the Post Office. IIRC RM had a 'revenue protection unit' but POID was deployed and ahem...'controlled' by PO. So PO had the power to investigate RM stuff but I think that RM, being privatised, now have their own unit. (I think RM have had a bit of a clear out of many old lags in Legal etc).
Otherwise, yes, POID or whatever they call themselves now need their wings clipped/a clear out.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Yes, my bad. I was conflating RM with the PO and since privatisation the two have been separate. But the PO needs to have its ability to prosecute removed, and the bully boys of the Investigative department need to be neutered.
mangocrazy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:25 pm
Part of the problem was the historical powers that the Royal Mail inherited from centuries ago, when they has to deal with Highwaymen robbing the Mail wagons. So they have their own internal Police Force and their in-house ability to prosecute, by-passing the checks that the Crown Prosecution Service would (hopefully) provide (as Scootabout mentions.
Basically the RM's ability to prosecute needs to be entirely removed and all such prosecutions handled by the CPS. Also the powers of their investigative arm needs to be drastically reduced such that they can make initial inquiries, but then have to hand over to the Police force to make further investigation and to decide if to refer to the CPS.
There is a degree of spin being put on a lot of reporting that misrepresents the PO legal powers.
Anyone can bring a private prosecution but some companies have access to usually reserved parts of the justice system. I read that the Royal Mail have retained priviledged access to police systems even after privatisation, I suspect the PO have this as well.
The PO has a problem with honesty but then so do most companies and government agencies, Peter Mandleson lied to Tony Blair to get his acceptance of Horizon due to political fallout if they didn't.
My problem is that the justice system allows abuse to happen so easily, the PO won't be the only ones at it.
Some mention that they claimed tax relief on the money spent on procecutions but that its illegal to claim tax relief on illegal activity so might be due a tax bill?
I'd be interested to see how that works in practice.
Was anyone on here involved in working for Fujitsu/Horizon by the way? I'd be interested to read their perspective.
They allegedly subtracted the money they're going to have to spend on compensation and fines from their reported profits, thus reducing their tax bill.
Typically any money associated with fines and "punishment" has to come after Tax, in any context. Its supposed to be punishment after all.
Trouble is, they can't actually afford to pay the potential missing tax back.
What worries me even more is the fact that a HUGE computer system was NOT tested properly, yet the Courts accepted it's results as being proof of guilt.
As I understand it the cash module was revealed to be flawed long before the system went live, and when the drains were dug up it was obvious that code coverage testing was not done. Fujitsu were told, but the Project Manager chose to prioritise delivery on time over actual accuracy.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 6:52 pm
Just seen something on the news. One of the POs investigators, Stephen Bradshaw, is being investigated back. What an arrogant wanker! Hope his life is now as miserable as he made theirs!
Watching some clips of the Select Committee (I think) on Politics Joe, Stephen Bradshaw comes across particularly cunty. I think he enjoyed his job and took pleasure out of seeing his colleagues getting screwed over.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 6:52 pm
Just seen something on the news. One of the POs investigators, Stephen Bradshaw, is being investigated back. What an arrogant wanker! Hope his life is now as miserable as he made theirs!
Watching some clips of the Select Committee (I think) on Politics Joe, Stephen Bradshaw comes across particularly cunty. I think he enjoyed his job and took pleasure out of seeing his colleagues getting screwed over.
He's typical of POID. Arrogant, racist, thugs who think like Judge Dredd - 'I am the law, I am POID'. They used to recruit the sort of ex-coppers who want to be judge, jury and executioner. A vile bunch who, after you meet them, leave you feeling you need a bath...according to my old PO moles/acquaintances. (I never worked there but I'm reasonably close to some that did).
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:18 pm
The thing that seems staggering/daft to me is how far these prosecutions all got.
You implement a new IT system and then all of a sudden you find mass instances of fraud and financial crime. Did no-one ever put two and two together, or is there such a pre-existing culture of crime in the RM nobody was surprised or what?
It was one of those IT infrastructure projects that was basically too big to fail. The PO had spent over £1billion on it (allegedly) and the fact that it essentially wasn't fit for purpose was totally unacceptable to PO top brass. So the cover up continued and the sub-postmasters became the fall guys. The fact that the fiasco kicked off in the late 1990s/very early 2000s meant that t'Internet was not as widely used as it is today and the victims were lied to and told 'it's only happening to you'. That kind of nonsense would be very quickly unmasked these days (one hopes).
The police would abuse bail conditions to prevent that and I suspect the PO investigators would find a similar court restriction. It's all about control to stop the accused finding and proving the truth.
I just found the answer to this. A mother and daughter worked together and the PO told them there was a court order that meant if they ever spoke to each other again one of them would go to prison. They didn't talk for a year and a half until they found out it was a lie.
It was one of those IT infrastructure projects that was basically too big to fail. The PO had spent over £1billion on it (allegedly) and the fact that it essentially wasn't fit for purpose was totally unacceptable to PO top brass. So the cover up continued and the sub-postmasters became the fall guys. The fact that the fiasco kicked off in the late 1990s/very early 2000s meant that t'Internet was not as widely used as it is today and the victims were lied to and told 'it's only happening to you'. That kind of nonsense would be very quickly unmasked these days (one hopes).
The police would abuse bail conditions to prevent that and I suspect the PO investigators would find a similar court restriction. It's all about control to stop the accused finding and proving the truth.
I just found the answer to this. A mother and daughter worked together and the PO told them there was a court order that meant if they ever spoke to each other again one of them would go to prison. They didn't talk for a year and a half until they found out it was a lie.
BBC wrote:The Post Office has hired investigators, including some ex-police, to look at its own staff's previous work investigating the Horizon scandal.
And just like the last lot they will find what they are paid to find, which is likely to be more scapegoats. Is saying 'some ex-police' meant to make them sound honest?
BBC wrote:The Post Office has hired investigators, including some ex-police, to look at its own staff's previous work investigating the Horizon scandal.
And just like the last lot they will find what they are paid to find, which is likely to be more scapegoats. Is saying 'some ex-police' meant to make them sound honest?
Not all police or ex police are dishonest. They may well find things that the PO don't want to hear and if they do, it won't be those ex police investigators that will cover it up.
Hope his life is now as miserable as he made theirs!
