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.
John Stalker comes to mind . . .
Being dishonest doesn't always involve lying, it can also mean ignoring inconvenient facts which the police are often exposed of doing. The most recent example I remember is Greta's court case where the Judge slammed the police and CPS for a shoddy politically driven prosecution following an unlawful arrest.
Like PO investigators the police find what they are told to and little else.
So if the police are told to find evidence of bad practice, wrongdoing, poor investigate skills, lying, cheating, doing as they were told etc by the PO investigators that'll be bad then?
Yambo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:26 am
So if the police are told to find evidence of bad practice, wrongdoing, poor investigate skills, lying, cheating, doing as they were told etc by the PO investigators that'll be bad then?
That could be a good thing but I'm far from convinced an investigation run by the PO now will be any better than their previous ones.
Yambo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:26 am
So if the police are told to find evidence of bad practice, wrongdoing, poor investigate skills, lying, cheating, doing as they were told etc by the PO investigators that'll be bad then?
Be better if they told them to look for it rather than find it....wouldn't want prejudge and start making assumptions of guilt eh? People might start finding things that weren't there until they, erm, had a good look.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Yambo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:26 am
So if the police are told to find evidence of bad practice, wrongdoing, poor investigate skills, lying, cheating, doing as they were told etc by the PO investigators that'll be bad then?
Be better if they told them to look for it rather than find it....wouldn't want prejudge and start making assumptions of guilt eh? People might start finding things that weren't there until they, erm, had a good look.
You make a very good point that I hadn't really considered before. Investigators start with the assumption a crime has been committed and then focus on who did it, this was very apparent in Operation Midland. I think in a major investigation the police do make checks to save themselves embarassment but they still start out with that bias and spend most of their effort confirming the assumption rather than finding the truth.
The police have to assume guilt, then look for the evidence that supports that assumption.
It would be a rather queer world if the police assumed innocence. They simply couldn't do their job.
As for the investigators being told to look for things wrong, I'm all in favour of that but a) I was quoting your words @Mussels and b) the way you see the police, they simply wouldn't look too hard.
Supermofo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:37 pm
Just when you thought they couldn't be more bent. Bet none of the brass get time though it looks more and more like straight up perjury to me.
demographic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:58 pm
So bearing in mind the fact that Fujitsu is a multinational company...
Are there other countries who used a version of Horizon?
demographic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:58 pm
So bearing in mind the fact that Fujitsu is a multinational company...
Are there other countries who used a version of Horizon?
Fujitsu basically swallowed up what was left of ICL. ICL, being a British computer manufacturing and services company, was always in pole position for Government contracts, which was why Fujitsu got the Horizon gig.
Supermofo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:37 pm
Just when you thought they couldn't be more bent. Bet none of the brass get time though it looks more and more like straight up perjury to me.
Secret papers reveal Post Office knew its court defence was false
Published
2 hours ago
A draft report uncovered by the BBC shows the Post Office spent £100m fighting sub-postmasters in court despite knowing its defence was untrue.
The document reveals the Post Office was shown evidence by 2017 that losses could be due to errors in the Horizon IT system or remote tampering.
That's £100 million PUBLIC money spent fighting sub-postmasters, I find the whole affair absolutely outrageous and it just seems to get worse and worse, lock 'em up immediately and recover the public money wasted from their pensions, maybe use some of it as compensation ...
Supermofo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:37 pm
Just when you thought they couldn't be more bent. Bet none of the brass get time though it looks more and more like straight up perjury to me.
Secret papers reveal Post Office knew its court defence was false
Published
2 hours ago
A draft report uncovered by the BBC shows the Post Office spent £100m fighting sub-postmasters in court despite knowing its defence was untrue.
The document reveals the Post Office was shown evidence by 2017 that losses could be due to errors in the Horizon IT system or remote tampering.
That's £100 million PUBLIC money spent fighting sub-postmasters, I find the whole affair absolutely outrageous and it just seems to get worse and worse, lock 'em up immediately and recover the public money wasted from their pensions, maybe use some of it as compensation ...
Calls for the police to be involved now, how they aren't already is pretty staggering. The whole thing stinks.
BBC wrote:The witness statement also indicates that, ahead of a 2021 Court of Appeal hearing, Ms Vennells was aware of a 2014 report by Deloitte which showed remote access to sub-postmasters’ accounts was possible.
Mussels wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 7:25 pm
This article makes me think that Paula Vennells should go to prison for a long stretch.
I read this morning that she's an ordained priest (Church of England).
Makes you wonder, doesn't it . . .
Don't worry. She'll absolve herself of any wrongdoings.
I've been following this on the news. I suspect the CPS are following it with even more scrutiny. Be surprised if there weren't arrests when it's over.
BBC wrote:The witness statement also indicates that, ahead of a 2021 Court of Appeal hearing, Ms Vennells was aware of a 2014 report by Deloitte which showed remote access to sub-postmasters’ accounts was possible.
Me too and not just her either. She may have been running the show, but others will have been complicit in this travesty too. A (means tested) fine and criminal record is one thing, but imagine how they felt losing their liberty and that first night when the cell door locked shut and all because of some idiots complacency and fuck ups.
BBC wrote:The witness statement also indicates that, ahead of a 2021 Court of Appeal hearing, Ms Vennells was aware of a 2014 report by Deloitte which showed remote access to sub-postmasters’ accounts was possible.
Me too and not just her either. She may have been running the show, but others will have been complicit in this travesty too. A (means tested) fine and criminal record is one thing, but imagine how they felt losing their liberty and that first night when the cell door locked shut and all because of some idiots complacency and fuck ups.
Complacency and fuck ups are one thing but a lot of people paid by the post office knowingly misled the courts for money. This is very hard to prove so the penalty needs to be severe, PO staff aren't the only corrupt prosecutors.
The courts are disappointing as well, far too much blind trust.
Reading through the inquiry notes as it happens there seems to be a lotttttt of "I can't remember & it wasn't my job or I never read that email " answers. There should be a lot of people serving time for their part in this mess as peoples lives have been shattered and ruined.
I didn't realize at the time but back in the early two thousands I was a minor victim of Post Office Ltd. myself. At the time they were the obvious choice as internet service provider if they already provided telephone services and I paid their quarterly bills by cheque with regularity. Unexpectedly they sent my a threatening letter saying I was about to be cut-off because I hadn't paid the bill. I immediately sent them a copy off my bank statement showing the cheque had been cleared through as usual within about a week of receiving the bill. This wasn't good enough even though I had been a customer for many years and always paid immediately and without delay. They insisted that I obtain the cleared cheque from my bank and send that to them as well!
At the time I was astonished that far from receiving an apology they sent me a grudging letter that, far from acknowledging their mistake, they implied I was somehow at fault and they were crediting my account as a "goodwill gesture". Now I know what a mess they were in it all makes sense and I was just lucky that the amount in question was so small that it would not have been worth their while to take matters further.
Needless to say I changed service provider at the first opportunity.
I could write pages about what happens when managers who don't understand IT or computers hive off responsibility to contractors but I won't bore you with that!
