Jump to content

Mr Bates v The Post Office


armsid
 Share

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Whilst I am no supporter of Labour (or any of it's leaders/MPs/Officials etc.), the real fault in this lies with the Post Office management, not Gov't.

The Post Office introduced a new system.  All new systems have 'bugs'.  They should have been aware of this and diligently investigating any inaccuracies.  When reports of 'errors' and 'discrepancies' were received these were not investigated properly and were dismissed as fraud. 

The number of instances over a prolonged period should have been a big Red Flag - but it was ignored/dismissed.  There is all probability that the investigations carried out were (at best) inadequate, and very probably deliberately 'rigged' as a cover up.  Senior management either remained blissfully 'unaware', (which is gross negligence of duty), or participated in 'cover ups'.

The blame lies squarely with the Post Office Management - and at the those involved should be put on trial.  All 'management' has a duty to see that the entity they are managing complies with the laws of the land and that includes the laws relating to thoroughness and accuracy of financial record keeping etc., which were clearly not being met in this case.  There is also good reason to question the auditors who were signing off accounts that contained major inaccuracies.  The purpose and duty of independent auditors is to pick these things up. 

It is difficult to know what access Fujitsu (as a software developer and supplier) had to records of possible problems/bugs.

I believe the biggest concern is that the courts seemed to accept a computer system as beyond reproach. With technology like AI coming in, who's to say in the future things like cctv and other digital media can't be falsified. If the judicial system doesn't learn from this, many more innocent people could be jailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 21/12/2023 at 10:33, JohnfromUK said:

There has been a long 'problem' over the Post Office.  About 30-40 years ago a friend discovered he and many others in his immediate area in London had been losing mail containing financial items, mainly dividend cheques.  These cheques were being 'cashed' at an overseas owned (Nigerian I think) currency exchange bureau in London (which shouldn't be able to happen as they are 'crossed cheques' which should only be payable into the payee's account).  My friend could get no help from the police who maintained it was a Post Office matter - and none from the Post Office who simply flatly denied it - Post wasn't stolen was the line. 

He hand circulated a flier locally and it turned out that many neighbours/small businesses locally had the same problem, but because neither police nor post office would act, nothing had been done.  It turned out that many £1000's had been stolen this way. 

In the end, one Post Worker was dismissed (never charged) because as the cheques had been cashed through 'bank error' in allowing the cheques to be cashed, the banks had to co-operate - and they wouldn't (because they were at fault).  It was believed he/she was 'connected' with the Nigerian owned currency exchange bureau.

In the end, no one was charged and the criminal simply lost his/her job.  The currency exchanged continued to operate (they couldn't act against them as there was no evidence without the banks co-operating) and my friend lost around £3500, and others similar amounts.

The Post Office was considered 'above suspicion'.

I am not following this. If the cheque was stolen and cashed the bank has been robbed nowt to do with the intended recipient of the cheque. They are still owed. So why is your friend out of pocket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I believe the biggest concern is that the courts seemed to accept a computer system as beyond reproach. With technology like AI coming in, who's to say in the future things like cctv and other digital media can't be falsified. If the judicial system doesn't learn from this, many more innocent people could be jailed.

I partly agree with you in that believing the software over (many) people is wrong.  However, it shouldn't have ever entered the judicial system.  The software had bugs/errors, and these should have been detected and corrected long before anyone was taken to court.  Post Office Management failure, not judicial failure.

 

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

I am not following this. If the cheque was stolen and cashed the bank has been robbed nowt to do with the intended recipient of the cheque. They are still owed. So why is your friend out of pocket?

I believe the cheque had been 'cleared' so the sender (a company dividend payment) said 'payment had been made'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have worked on 4 major government IT Contracts - CJSE, NPfIT, ECND and DHE - Only 2 were a success - with one actually mentioned in the HOC as how to deliver a successful IT contract - it was run as a startup without the weight of corporate processes etc...and it wasn't NPfIT - although at first I got the contract for designing the database infrastructure for NE-EM my wife wouldn't go to Leeds despite at the time we were looking to move North - instead, I later ended up on the NW-WM but not in a major role.

But, what went on for the PO was absolutely criminal - in a way - none of my projects were financially involved for 3rd parties in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The software had bugs/errors, and these should have been detected and corrected long before anyone was taken to court.  

They were detected.

I am astonished that the prosecution witnesses swore that the system was not at fault. I think the Police should be re-visiting testimony from those people to see if there was perjury. The world and his wife knew about the flaws, so someone actually involved in the system would have been well aware, unless they were totally inept and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I believe the biggest concern is that the courts seemed to accept a computer system as beyond reproach. With technology like AI coming in, who's to say in the future things like cctv and other digital media can't be falsified. If the judicial system doesn't learn from this, many more innocent people could be jailed.

What better way to keep the population frightened and malleable? A gift from heaven? 😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'd say lord dennings words are a contradiction. If innocent men get jailed, the judicial system becomes questionable and will rightly become untrustworthy.

How dare say 12gauge82 suggest such a thing?   It amounts to impugning the integrity of the English judicial system.    Orf with his head.   Or at least have him thrown into jail.

One of Lord Denning's successors as Master of the Rolls, Lord Bingham, described him as "the best known and best loved judge in our history", and if a senior judge says that, can it possibly be incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
8 minutes ago, countryman said:

Well worth watching on ITV X , I remember this when it first started, shocking that it’s still going on, those poor people hounded and ruined by the post office’s  computer system Horizon and the Post Offices Henchmen hounding them.

I didn't see it, but I do hope that having a 'docudrama' based on what happened doesn't prejudice any possible future legal action.  It is difficult to see how a fair trial could happen when the jury members may have watched a 'docudrama' which may have given them the impression based on the producers interpretation - rather than based on the whole evidence, not all of which may be in the public domain.

It would seem to me that any TV programmes should not risk any future legal events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I didn't see it, but I do hope that having a 'docudrama' based on what happened doesn't prejudice any possible future legal action.  It is difficult to see how a fair trial could happen when the jury members may have watched a 'docudrama' which may have given them the impression based on the producers interpretation - rather than based on the whole evidence, not all of which may be in the public domain.

It would seem to me that any TV programmes should not risk any future legal events.

An interesting point John.

I am personally aware of 2 people this happened to. There is, in my opinion a dire need to put the sponsors and perpetrators of this before the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, old man said:

There is, in my opinion a dire need to put the sponsors and perpetrators of this before the courts.

Indeed, I don't disagree at all.  But if there has been a TV 'docudrama' about it - and I haven't seen it so can't comment on any 'leanings it may take' - but the fact that it was made alone may be used by any 'defence' by the Post Office to suggest that the jury would be forming their verdict - not on the evidence alone, but partially on the docudrama they had seen.

It would be very difficult for any member of the jury to completely 'ignore and forget' what has been on TV and form an opinion ONLY on whet has been presented in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Indeed, I don't disagree at all.  But if there has been a TV 'docudrama' about it - and I haven't seen it so can't comment on any 'leanings it may take' - but the fact that it was made alone may be used by any 'defence' by the Post Office to suggest that the jury would be forming their verdict - not on the evidence alone, but partially on the docudrama they had seen.

It would be very difficult for any member of the jury to completely 'ignore and forget' what has been on TV and form an opinion ONLY on whet has been presented in court.

The cynic in me thinks that is why the "drama" was allowed to be made  - to protect the guilty from prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

The cynic in me thinks that is why the "drama" was allowed to be made  - to protect the guilty from prosecution.

Since one of the 'alleged' guilty (having been Chief Executive at the Post Office) was also Chief Executive of ITV between 2010 and 2017 - he is likely to have 'friends in high places' at ITV.  The Mail reports that it is noticeable that his name is not mentioned (though how they know that for the next two episodes I don't know).  He is now chairman at BT (on £700K a year there as a non exec).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Since one of the 'alleged' guilty (having been Chief Executive at the Post Office) was also Chief Executive of ITV between 2010 and 2017 - he is likely to have 'friends in high places' at ITV.  The Mail reports that it is noticeable that his name is not mentioned (though how they know that for the next two episodes I don't know).  He is now chairman at BT (on £700K a year there as a non exec).

"quelle surprise"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one in high office will ever go to jail for any crime in this country that,s what us "plebs " are here for. How many people from high office are going to jail over this fiasco? i thought that once the verdicts against those convicted was overturned it gave the police the chance to go after the liars who committed perjury alas will never happen and the post masters /mistresses that  died due to the lies  and sress of it will never see closure and their good names cleared and records cleared

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, armsid said:

No one in high office will ever go to jail for any crime in this country that,s what us "plebs " are here for. How many people from high office are going to jail over this fiasco? i thought that once the verdicts against those convicted was overturned it gave the police the chance to go after the liars who committed perjury alas will never happen and the post masters /mistresses that  died due to the lies  and sress of it will never see closure and their good names cleared and records cleared

Sadly, most likely true? They all use the same pot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/12/2023 at 22:12, Gordon R said:

The Post Office knew the Horizon system was fatally flawed almost 20 years ago. 

I knew the post office system was fatally flawed 15 years ago ! And I didn’t work for the post office rumours were circulating well before it made the front page of computer weekly 

i remember reading this article here in 2009 !

the joy of filbert on the back page as well !

IMG_2706.png.ed7623a632e179dd3be4d284ed15ef15.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/12/2023 at 13:10, Gordon R said:

JohnfromUK - you are correct. They can't say they were unaware of the problems with the Horizon (Fujitsu) system (strictly speaking they could and did deny this, but that was clearly untrue). They did know, people who worked within the Post Office Investigations Branch knew, as did people in outside agencies. 

hello, look forward to last episode tonight, whistle blower from Fujitsu 🤔,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2024 at 11:58, countryman said:

Well worth watching on ITV X , I remember this when it first started, shocking that it’s still going on, those poor people hounded and ruined by the post office’s  computer system Horizon and the Post Offices Henchmen hounding them.

Do you need "premium" as couldn’t find it on itv x 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

Do you need "premium" as couldn’t find it on itv x 🤔

No, you can use the free access version. It comes up as the main item on the login page on mine, otherwise look in “Top Picks” further down the page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...