|
Post by elystokie on Jun 14, 2024 5:22:35 GMT
Very slippery. Trying to say he and the firm were just a conduit... The only people working for the Post Office who seem to actually have had any responsibility for anything were the poor bastard sub post masters and they got treated like shit for it. Quite, I'll bet there's not many of them with 'memory lapses' 🤔
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 14, 2024 10:23:20 GMT
Line of the inquiry talking about who was in the room
Jarnail Singh was there and he wouldn't have been taking notes
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 14, 2024 10:34:03 GMT
That was well put to him, basically, you were part of a cover up
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 14, 2024 21:31:42 GMT
Sir Alan Bates
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 18, 2024 9:54:04 GMT
Old Jarnail gets a mention again.
Shambolic and more of an administrator than a legal professional.
The guy has to be fucked. Hopefully, he isn't sleeping well at night.
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Jun 18, 2024 10:13:07 GMT
Old Jarnail gets a mention again. Shambolic and more of an administrator than a legal professional. The guy has to be fucked. Hopefully, he isn't sleeping well at night. I have a feeling that the public pressure on CPS to prosecute someone and reluctance to nail high profile perpetrators like Vennells and Perkins, means that Jarnail could be made the fall guy. Andrew Parsons and Rod Ismay definitely need to go down with him though. What we’ve heard this morning is the non-disclosure under LLP of Bander's investigation report noting no evidence of theft by Jo Hamilton. That is clear evidence of the cover up showing Jo was basically innocent and POL hid it from Second Sight.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 18, 2024 12:18:54 GMT
SEcond Sight this morning, their evidence looks damning
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 19, 2024 0:37:14 GMT
As I have a limited attention span and dont watch the live feed I only dip in and out of this thread but I'm surprised it hasn't been more active today from the more avid followers
Henderson of Second Sight flat out accused Vennells and the Post Office External Lawyers of a Criminal Conspiracy
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 19, 2024 4:35:09 GMT
Old Jarnail gets a mention again. Shambolic and more of an administrator than a legal professional. The guy has to be fucked. Hopefully, he isn't sleeping well at night. I have a feeling that the public pressure on CPS to prosecute someone and reluctance to nail high profile perpetrators like Vennells and Perkins, means that Jarnail could be made the fall guy. Andrew Parsons and Rod Ismay definitely need to go down with him though. What we’ve heard this morning is the non-disclosure under LLP of Bander's investigation report noting no evidence of theft by Jo Hamilton. That is clear evidence of the cover up showing Jo was basically innocent and POL hid it from Second Sight. As I understand it the CPS doesn't INVESTIGATE crime and put forward a case for prosecution.....the police have to do the investigation at this stage and then the CPS decide if the evidence/ case is strong enough to likely to lead to conviction and therefore should go ahead. So really the Police need to find appropriate specific criminal offences for which the evidence supports a strong case. Some people have mentioned perjury. It may seem clear to outside observers , but how much of what has been done is somehow " covered" by the context of working for a company ( business, or whatever the classification of the Post Office.... is it a PLC? I haven'tlooked) and of course any defendants will have tup barristers to point to reasonable doubt in the evidence. I have not looked at it closely but haven't the CPS just decided not to ahead with prosecutions in the Lawrence case? ....... From a BBC news link She Stephen's mum) said the CPS's decision "marks a new low in the way the criminal justice [system] has treated me and my family", saying it was "unjustifiable". The CPS said it understood the decision not to prosecute would be "extremely disappointing" for Stephen’s family and friends and it had offered to meet close family members to explain its reasoning in detail. ......... To be clear I hope those responsible for these disgraceful miscarriages of Justice get their " just" deserts including loss of liberty/ pension etc
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jun 19, 2024 6:11:18 GMT
I have a feeling that the public pressure on CPS to prosecute someone and reluctance to nail high profile perpetrators like Vennells and Perkins, means that Jarnail could be made the fall guy. Andrew Parsons and Rod Ismay definitely need to go down with him though. What we’ve heard this morning is the non-disclosure under LLP of Bander's investigation report noting no evidence of theft by Jo Hamilton. That is clear evidence of the cover up showing Jo was basically innocent and POL hid it from Second Sight. As I understand it the CPS doesn't INVESTIGATE crime and put forward a case for prosecution.....the police have to do the investigation at this stage and then the CPS decide if the evidence/ case is strong enough to likely to lead to conviction and therefore should go ahead. So really the Police need to find appropriate specific criminal offences for which the evidence supports a strong case. Some people have mentioned perjury. It may seem clear to outside observers , but how much of what has been done is somehow " covered" by the context of working for a company ( business, or whatever the classification of the Post Office.... is it a PLC? I haven'tlooked) and of course any defendants will have tup barristers to point to reasonable doubt in the evidence. I have not looked at it closely but haven't the CPS just decided not to ahead with prosecutions in the Lawrence case? ....... From a BBC news link She Stephen's mum) said the CPS's decision "marks a new low in the way the criminal justice [system] has treated me and my family", saying it was "unjustifiable". The CPS said it understood the decision not to prosecute would be "extremely disappointing" for Stephen’s family and friends and it had offered to meet close family members to explain its reasoning in detail. ......... To be clear I hope those responsible for these disgraceful miscarriages of Justice get their " just" deserts including loss of liberty/ pension etc There are some cases where a particular action by a particular individual look clear cut in terms of who you prosecute but most of this case seems to be about organisational behaviours which raises the question as to who is legally responsible for those collective behaviours. You would hope the senior executives but I don't know what the charges might be or what protections they have in those roles. To what extent is "I was only doing my job" a defence and how far down the line does this go? My personal view is that everybody should take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions but I don't know the legal position. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 19, 2024 6:27:16 GMT
As I understand it the CPS doesn't INVESTIGATE crime and put forward a case for prosecution.....the police have to do the investigation at this stage and then the CPS decide if the evidence/ case is strong enough to likely to lead to conviction and therefore should go ahead. So really the Police need to find appropriate specific criminal offences for which the evidence supports a strong case. Some people have mentioned perjury. It may seem clear to outside observers , but how much of what has been done is somehow " covered" by the context of working for a company ( business, or whatever the classification of the Post Office.... is it a PLC? I haven'tlooked) and of course any defendants will have tup barristers to point to reasonable doubt in the evidence. I have not looked at it closely but haven't the CPS just decided not to ahead with prosecutions in the Lawrence case? ....... From a BBC news link She Stephen's mum) said the CPS's decision "marks a new low in the way the criminal justice [system] has treated me and my family", saying it was "unjustifiable". The CPS said it understood the decision not to prosecute would be "extremely disappointing" for Stephen’s family and friends and it had offered to meet close family members to explain its reasoning in detail. ......... To be clear I hope those responsible for these disgraceful miscarriages of Justice get their " just" deserts including loss of liberty/ pension etc There are some cases where a particular action by a particular individual look clear cut in terms of who you prosecute but most of this case seems to be about organisational behaviours which raises the question as to who is legally responsible for those collective behaviours. You would hope the senior executives but I don't know what the charges might be or what protections they have in those roles. To what extent is "I was only doing my job" a defence and how far down the line does this go? My personal view is that everybody should take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions but I don't know the legal position. Anyone? I agree entirely CB I'm no expert either Under company law, many things are " covered " because the Company is considered a ' separate legal identity ' and therefore in some circumstances ' shareholders' and employees are covered for many things and are not liable. Obviously they would not be exempt if a criminal act was assessed to have taken place outside company law. If the managers claim to have acted" In good faith" in the best interests of the PO, at the time , the way the law is convictions may be difficult......I totally accept they shouldn't be.....but as an aside I remember going to court with someone ( whose nickname was " Mac" the knife) who had clearly stabbed someone ( in a Hartshill pub). He expected ( and hoped) for 7 years imprisonment ( he told me this himself), because the liklihood was thst he would get nearer 14( the victim nearly died). Anyway he was technically charged with the wrong section of ( iirc) the Offences against the person act....intent could not be proved " beyond reasonable doubt " and he was found not guilty....." everyone " knew he was. AND to be clear ( as you have to be on the Oatcake) I have not ' investigated '( googled!) the legal status of the PO....I'm sure someone will do so soon. I'm a sole trader and pay alot for insurance for professional indemnity.... so to what extent PO employees are covered for " mistakes "(!!¡) who knows. To be clear I hope those responsible are severely punished Apparently the PO is a Public Corporation.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 19, 2024 10:50:05 GMT
Indeed.
Fear that's the way we are heading.
Organisational failure. Cultural failings etc.
People not doing the "right thing" but not doing the right thing isn't criminal.
I guess we'll only know after the inquiry has concluded.
From what I've read police have spoken to two people so far.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jun 19, 2024 21:47:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 19, 2024 22:53:30 GMT
There are some cases where a particular action by a particular individual look clear cut in terms of who you prosecute but most of this case seems to be about organisational behaviours which raises the question as to who is legally responsible for those collective behaviours. You would hope the senior executives but I don't know what the charges might be or what protections they have in those roles. To what extent is "I was only doing my job" a defence and how far down the line does this go? My personal view is that everybody should take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions but I don't know the legal position. Anyone? I agree entirely CB I'm no expert either Under company law, many things are " covered " because the Company is considered a ' separate legal identity ' and therefore in some circumstances ' shareholders' and employees are covered for many things and are not liable. Obviously they would not be exempt if a criminal act was assessed to have taken place outside company law. If the managers claim to have acted" In good faith" in the best interests of the PO, at the time , the way the law is convictions may be difficult......I totally accept they shouldn't be.....but as an aside I remember going to court with someone ( whose nickname was " Mac" the knife) who had clearly stabbed someone ( in a Hartshill pub). He expected ( and hoped) for 7 years imprisonment ( he told me this himself), because the liklihood was thst he would get nearer 14( the victim nearly died). Anyway he was technically charged with the wrong section of ( iirc) the Offences against the person act....intent could not be proved " beyond reasonable doubt " and he was found not guilty....." everyone " knew he was. AND to be clear ( as you have to be on the Oatcake) I have not ' investigated '( googled!) the legal status of the PO....I'm sure someone will do so soon. I'm a sole trader and pay alot for insurance for professional indemnity.... so to what extent PO employees are covered for " mistakes "(!!¡) who knows. To be clear I hope those responsible are severely punished Apparently the PO is a Public Corporation. The background under UK Law into how the Post Office was able to circumvent a normal Police Investigation and an assessment by CPS as to what chances of a conviction or if in the Public Interest are: It's a bit like the Question: Why does a Dog lick it's Balls - because it can The cases against Subpostmasters by the Post Office were Private Prosecutions an option open to any Company or Individual What is required is an application (Post Office) to a Magistrate to issue a summons to bring a private prosecution, a person or company asks a magistrate to issue a summons against the accused person. If the applicant can show there is evidence, the magistrate generally will do so. The magistrate (unlike the CPS) does not assess that evidence, nor the likelihood of conviction. They do not decide whether there is any public interest in bringing the case. They do not ask why the police and CPS have not been involved. And they do not usually invite representations from the accused person. When the accused person answers the summons, an ordinary criminal case commences, not a civil case. The magistrate decides whether the charges are serious enough to be tried in the Crown Court which can carry a custodial sentence upon conviction Once the Prosecution reaches Court then normal obligations and standards are applied The Lawyers appointed by Post Office not Regina, have an obligation to disclose to the Defence any material information that is material and may help in the Defence. In my limited viewing of the Inquiry this appears to not be the case of what happened if they were aware of problems in the Horizon IT System but prosecuted on the basis they were unaware This is Perverting the Course of Justice and carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment The Individuals (not the Post Office, you can not hide behind the Corporate veil in Criminal proceedings only Civil) who instructed the Lawyers, if they either withheld information or volunteered information to the Prosecuting Lawyers who they knew withheld it from Defence can also be prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice Prosecution witnesses who lied under oath because they had knowledge of what they were saying was Bollocks can be tried for Perjury which carries a sentence of up to 7 years. Prima Facie based on what I have seen and read of the Inquiry both Internal and External Lawyers and Post Office Staff have a case to answer for Perverting the Course of Justice and some Post Office Staff have a case to answer for Perjury It would be a major miscarriage of justice if CPS didn't do so in at least 'the Public Interest' How deep the prosecutions may go or their outcome remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 20, 2024 9:14:50 GMT
Interesting start with Ward being found out. Has he lied on the stand previously.
Fun week next week too with Jenko on the stand finally. Had enough time to cobble together an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 20, 2024 19:13:52 GMT
I didn't think they could get any more incompetent. Interesting start with Ward being found out. Has he lied on the stand previously. Fun week next week too with Jenko on the stand finally. Had enough time to cobble together an excuse. Jenko as in Simon Jenkins? I'm hoping he gets a pasting. We know from documentation that he was aware of at least one of the critical bugs impacting financial takings, if not more. He discussed those with the powers that be. And despite all that, they put him as the expert witness where he lied. The post office even took out insurance on his unreliable evidence. Feels like there is plenty to work with.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 20, 2024 19:44:01 GMT
I didn't think they could get any more incompetent. Interesting start with Ward being found out. Has he lied on the stand previously. Fun week next week too with Jenko on the stand finally. Had enough time to cobble together an excuse. Jenko as in Simon Jenkins? I'm hoping he gets a pasting. We know from documentation that he was aware of at least one of the critical bugs impacting financial takings, if not more. He discussed those with the powers that be. And despite all that, they put him as the expert witness where he lied. The post office even took out insurance on his unreliable evidence. Feels like there is plenty to work with. Yep 4 days back to back next week. Should be fun.. That Ward chap today got caught out lying in his previous evidence. Said he would not amend or delete a witness statement. Then they found he has.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 21, 2024 9:06:30 GMT
Very angry man on the stand today. Should be fun..
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jun 21, 2024 9:18:42 GMT
I agree entirely CB I'm no expert either Under company law, many things are " covered " because the Company is considered a ' separate legal identity ' and therefore in some circumstances ' shareholders' and employees are covered for many things and are not liable. Obviously they would not be exempt if a criminal act was assessed to have taken place outside company law. If the managers claim to have acted" In good faith" in the best interests of the PO, at the time , the way the law is convictions may be difficult......I totally accept they shouldn't be.....but as an aside I remember going to court with someone ( whose nickname was " Mac" the knife) who had clearly stabbed someone ( in a Hartshill pub). He expected ( and hoped) for 7 years imprisonment ( he told me this himself), because the liklihood was thst he would get nearer 14( the victim nearly died). Anyway he was technically charged with the wrong section of ( iirc) the Offences against the person act....intent could not be proved " beyond reasonable doubt " and he was found not guilty....." everyone " knew he was. AND to be clear ( as you have to be on the Oatcake) I have not ' investigated '( googled!) the legal status of the PO....I'm sure someone will do so soon. I'm a sole trader and pay alot for insurance for professional indemnity.... so to what extent PO employees are covered for " mistakes "(!!¡) who knows. To be clear I hope those responsible are severely punished Apparently the PO is a Public Corporation. The background under UK Law into how the Post Office was able to circumvent a normal Police Investigation and an assessment by CPS as to what chances of a conviction or if in the Public Interest are: It's a bit like the Question: Why does a Dog lick it's Balls - because it can The cases against Subpostmasters by the Post Office were Private Prosecutions an option open to any Company or Individual What is required is an application (Post Office) to a Magistrate to issue a summons to bring a private prosecution, a person or company asks a magistrate to issue a summons against the accused person. If the applicant can show there is evidence, the magistrate generally will do so. The magistrate (unlike the CPS) does not assess that evidence, nor the likelihood of conviction. They do not decide whether there is any public interest in bringing the case. They do not ask why the police and CPS have not been involved. And they do not usually invite representations from the accused person. When the accused person answers the summons, an ordinary criminal case commences, not a civil case. The magistrate decides whether the charges are serious enough to be tried in the Crown Court which can carry a custodial sentence upon conviction Once the Prosecution reaches Court then normal obligations and standards are applied The Lawyers appointed by Post Office not Regina, have an obligation to disclose to the Defence any material information that is material and may help in the Defence. In my limited viewing of the Inquiry this appears to not be the case of what happened if they were aware of problems in the Horizon IT System but prosecuted on the basis they were unaware This is Perverting the Course of Justice and carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment The Individuals (not the Post Office, you can not hide behind the Corporate veil in Criminal proceedings only Civil) who instructed the Lawyers, if they either withheld information or volunteered information to the Prosecuting Lawyers who they knew withheld it from Defence can also be prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice Prosecution witnesses who lied under oath because they had knowledge of what they were saying was Bollocks can be tried for Perjury which carries a sentence of up to 7 years. Prima Facie based on what I have seen and read of the Inquiry both Internal and External Lawyers and Post Office Staff have a case to answer for Perverting the Course of Justice and some Post Office Staff have a case to answer for Perjury It would be a major miscarriage of justice if CPS didn't do so in at least 'the Public Interest' How deep the prosecutions may go or their outcome remains to be seen. Thanks for the clarification- much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 21, 2024 13:04:45 GMT
This bloke is a car crash.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 25, 2024 6:02:29 GMT
Jenko on the stand. 4 day grilling before being roasted by the Core participant solicitors incoming. 🍿 at the ready.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 25, 2024 9:47:01 GMT
Currently off work due to illness so watching live.
Very keen to see what Mr Jenkins says today, especially as someone who works in the same field.
He's already evasive as fuck.
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Jun 25, 2024 9:56:42 GMT
Currently off work due to illness so watching live. Very keen to see what Mr Jenkins says today, especially as someone who works in the same field. He's already evasive as fuck. Hmm, I think he seems open and honest thus far. But obviously not got to the tough questions yet. Doesn't seem to have any 'side', or self serving demeanour.
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jun 25, 2024 11:24:43 GMT
Get the impression that Jenkins was more immersed in his own work at the time rather than having some sort of agenda, taking sides etc..
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 25, 2024 11:46:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jun 25, 2024 12:36:56 GMT
Righto. Trying to get an idea on a 20 minute lunch break is tricky.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jun 25, 2024 14:40:27 GMT
Get the impression that Jenkins was more immersed in his own work at the time rather than having some sort of agenda, taking sides etc.. I don't understand how he could even have been accepted as an expert witness. He was certainly an expert in the system - he was one of the designers - but that in itself means he had a vested interest in the system and any testimony he provided was compromised. It seems to me like he was employed by the Post Office because he was a soft touch and could be leaned on to provide the a statement that supported the prosecution's case. A professional is supposed to abide by a code of ethics and his resignation from his professional body suggests he knows full well he failed to abide by those standards. He did wrong and should be prosecuted on his role in this but if the Post Office try to make him the scapegoat (which I'm sure they will) that would be outrageous.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 25, 2024 15:40:38 GMT
Currently off work due to illness so watching live. Very keen to see what Mr Jenkins says today, especially as someone who works in the same field. He's already evasive as fuck. Hmm, I think he seems open and honest thus far. But obviously not got to the tough questions yet. Doesn't seem to have any 'side', or self serving demeanour. I found him evasive to begin with although he seemed genuine during the middle. I've had to turn it off, so not seen the last few hours.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 25, 2024 15:42:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 25, 2024 15:57:45 GMT
Disclosure is at the heart of the matter It's why I will be very surprised if Prosecuting Lawyers, Post Office and Fujitsu Staff aren't prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice as well as witnesses for Perjury
|
|