|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 9, 2024 13:51:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 9, 2024 13:56:15 GMT
The post office should be shut down as well. Not sure what I've done to upset you mate? I'm trying to understand your logic of punishing many people from something that others long gone did, and no doubt with golden handshakes leaving a mess for others to clean up. Not giving any new contracts out will mean job losses, possible house losses, and the normal marital strife etc that comes with that, these are innocent people just going to work who had nothing to do with the small amount of people to scale involved in this scandal, it's those that should be sought out and punished and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 9, 2024 14:04:16 GMT
Not sure what I've done to upset you mate? I'm trying to understand your logic of punishing many people from something that others long gone did, and no doubt with golden handshakes leaving a mess for others to clean up. Not giving any new contracts out will mean job losses, possible house losses, and the normal marital strife etc that comes with that, these are innocent people just going to work who had nothing to do with the small amount of people to scale involved in this scandal, it's those that should be sought out and punished and rightly so. Can't recall saying we should punish many people at all, sorry. Those guilty of cover up and fraud should be brought to justice though, agreed?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 9, 2024 14:04:39 GMT
Amazing that here she mentions in Parliament giving them a contract
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 9, 2024 14:31:00 GMT
As I said, splitting hairs. He was personally responsible and/or professionally involved in those donations. 20,000 employees working at ICL in the 1990's is a massive red herring that you've decided to introduce as nothing more than a deflection tactic. And the point being made, has nothing to do with individually persecuting 10,000 Fujitsu employees either. If you work for a company that has massively let down it's customer, whilst at the same time, been accused by a court judge of lying under oath, it is understandable that the company you work for will come under scrutiny and as a result of that scrutiny, may find that they lose some of their contracts to that customer (and indeed others). That's how any reputable and dilligent customer would look after their shareholders money. The difference being, that in this case, the supplier (Fujitsu) didn't come under any scrutiny and was instead awarded even more contracts or contract extensions. It is perfectly reasonable and indeed extremely important to ask, why that might have been? So are you also saying we should shut down the whole of the Post Office, they only have 1 shareholder ? Sorry, I haven't got the foggiest what you're on about ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 9, 2024 14:40:13 GMT
Amazing that here she mentions in Parliament giving them a contract You've missed the point unfortunately. It's not about whether Patel has ever mentioned Fujitsu AT ALL (in any context) but rather, its specifically about her call for Fujtitsu to be held to account over the Post Ofiice scandal and how long she has been pushing for it.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 9, 2024 15:10:38 GMT
What this highlights is that if you want government action, you need to find some half decent, British actors and make yourself a tv show.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 9, 2024 15:14:04 GMT
As I said, splitting hairs. He was personally responsible and/or professionally involved in those donations. 20,000 employees working at ICL in the 1990's is a massive red herring that you've decided to introduce as nothing more than a deflection tactic. And the point being made, has nothing to do with individually persecuting 10,000 Fujitsu employees either. If you work for a company that has massively let down it's customer, whilst at the same time, been accused by a court judge of lying under oath, it is understandable that the company you work for will come under scrutiny and as a result of that scrutiny, may find that they lose some of their contracts to that customer (and indeed others). That's how any reputable and dilligent customer would look after their shareholders money. The difference being, that in this case, the supplier (Fujitsu) didn't come under any scrutiny and was instead awarded even more contracts or contract extensions. It is perfectly reasonable and indeed extremely important to ask, why that might have been? Fujitsu were also shafted by the government many years ago, awarded a big contract, they leased buildings for many years to serve it, the coalition came in power and stopped the mobilisation and cancelled the contract and basically told them to suck it up if they wanted more contracts in the future, the crash had happened and there was no money, there's a lot that goes on behind all these headlines in the wheels of power. So we should sympathise with Fujitsu...?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 9, 2024 15:48:31 GMT
So are you also saying we should shut down the whole of the Post Office, they only have 1 shareholder ? Sorry, I haven't got the foggiest what you're on about ... You say that Fujitsu shouldn't have any more contracts awarded, so shouldn't the same go for the Post Office, same scandal, same punishment, and as the PO only has 1 contract that shouldn't go on?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 9, 2024 15:52:33 GMT
Amazing that here she mentions in Parliament giving them a contract You've missed the point unfortunately. It's not about whether Patel has ever mentioned Fujitsu AT ALL (in any context) but rather, its specifically about her call for Fujtitsu to be held to account over the Post Ofiice scandal and how long she has been pushing for it. She states in that speech about them being awarded new contracts, why now, just because a TV series has been shown, yet she was awarding contracts to them 3 years ago when she was supposedly pushing for them to be held to account ?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 9, 2024 15:53:39 GMT
Fujitsu were also shafted by the government many years ago, awarded a big contract, they leased buildings for many years to serve it, the coalition came in power and stopped the mobilisation and cancelled the contract and basically told them to suck it up if they wanted more contracts in the future, the crash had happened and there was no money, there's a lot that goes on behind all these headlines in the wheels of power. So we should sympathise with Fujitsu...? I didn't say that at all did I ?
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 9, 2024 15:54:51 GMT
What this highlights is that if you want government action, you need to find some half decent, British actors and make yourself a tv show. Damn. They said it first 😂.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 9, 2024 16:38:02 GMT
You've missed the point unfortunately. It's not about whether Patel has ever mentioned Fujitsu AT ALL (in any context) but rather, its specifically about her call for Fujtitsu to be held to account over the Post Ofiice scandal and how long she has been pushing for it. She states in that speech about them being awarded new contracts, why now, just because a TV series has been shown, yet she was awarding contracts to them 3 years ago when she was supposedly pushing for them to be held to account ? Has Patel ever told the truth? The amazing thing about this phenomena of perpetual lying is that people are just so numb to it. News shows should run segments entitled “Lies Told This Week” and have an end of the month round up. I imagine they’d be well-viewed to be honest and they really would highlight the trash that comes out of some of these people’s mouths.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 9, 2024 16:45:57 GMT
You've missed the point unfortunately. It's not about whether Patel has ever mentioned Fujitsu AT ALL (in any context) but rather, its specifically about her call for Fujtitsu to be held to account over the Post Ofiice scandal and how long she has been pushing for it. She states in that speech about them being awarded new contracts, why now, just because a TV series has been shown, yet she was awarding contracts to them 3 years ago when she was supposedly pushing for them to be held to account ? That's cool, you agree that she's flat out lying then? Maybe it was me who actually missed your point.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 9, 2024 17:04:17 GMT
Sorry, I haven't got the foggiest what you're on about ... You say that Fujitsu shouldn't have any more contracts awarded, so shouldn't the same go for the Post Office, same scandal, same punishment, and as the PO only has 1 contract that shouldn't go on? I didn't say that at all, you're literally putting words into my mouth. I said, that given the huge failure by Fujitsu to it's customer (the Post Office) and the fact that a court judge accused Fujitsu of lying under oath, it is not unreasonable to ask why Fujitsu continued to receive further contracts or contract extensions, without any form of scrutiny from the Government. That's not a call for them not to receive any more contracts per se, but rather it's calling out the people who continued to instruct them as if absolutely nothing whatsoever had happened. At the very least, an extra level of due diligence was now required based on what had happened but seemingly nobody seemed to think it was necessary. If a government had contracted an aircraft manufacturer to make planes for it's national fleet and one of those aeroplanes had spectacularly crashed and in the investigation of the crash, a judge accused the aeroplane manufacturer of lying and attempting a cover up, don't you think the public would expect the Government to have a bit of a closer look at the manufacturer before awarding them any more contracts? My point isn't really about Fujitsu per se but rather, it's about those individuals who continued to instruct them, without seemingly giving them a second glance, once the cat was out of the bag.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 9, 2024 17:05:04 GMT
So we should sympathise with Fujitsu...? I didn't say that at all did I ? You presented an argument (without support) which portrays Fujitsu as a victim. You have also accused others of wanting to punish innocent Fujitsu employees, again apparently without foundation. You seem to be trying to deflect, or otherwise diminish, the justifiable outrage towards a major party in this scandal. Either way, the possibility that Fujitsu may have been treated harshly in the past, or might suffer some negative consequences in the future, should not have a bearing on the pursuit of justice for the sub-postmasters. Perhaps you hold a lot of Fujitsu shares?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 9, 2024 17:51:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Jan 9, 2024 22:59:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Jan 9, 2024 23:20:44 GMT
Probably get lost in the post.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 9, 2024 23:25:15 GMT
The architect of the faulty Horizon IT system, who gave evidence used to convict sub-postmasters, has demanded immunity before agreeing to appear at the public inquiry.
Gareth Jenkins, who is understood to have been instrumental in developing the software as a senior computer engineer at Fujitsu, is under police investigation over his role in the Post Office scandal.
His testimony given in court cases that the Fujitsu IT system was working correctly was central to convictions and repeatedly used by Post Office lawyers.
BUT THIS IS THE REALLY INTERESTING BIT:
Documents forced a postponement Mr Jenkins was first due to give testimony to the inquiry on July 6 2023 but on the eve of his evidence the Post Office produced 5,000 documents it said had just come to light. The appearance was rescheduled for November 2023 but again more than 3,000 documents were found by the Post Office, this time days beforehand, forcing another postponement. Sources have speculated that the release of the documents was timed to prevent Mr Jenkins giving evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 10, 2024 7:36:45 GMT
I didn't say that at all did I ? You presented an argument (without support) which portrays Fujitsu as a victim. You have also accused others of wanting to punish innocent Fujitsu employees, again apparently without foundation. You seem to be trying to deflect, or otherwise diminish, the justifiable outrage towards a major party in this scandal. Either way, the possibility that Fujitsu may have been treated harshly in the past, or might suffer some negative consequences in the future, should not have a bearing on the pursuit of justice for the sub-postmasters. Perhaps you hold a lot of Fujitsu shares? where have I said Fujitsu is a victim ? I said there are innocent people working at Fujitsu and those involved in the scandal have long gone with no doubt golden handshakes, where have I said Fujitsu are a victim in that? I've said that cancelling or not renewing contracts will mean people losing their jobs, which any person would understand happens, people wont be paid to sit around and do nothing will they? The company will no doubt pay for this but what I'm saying, which I don't think is hard to understand, is that the ones that were involved no longer work there and those that do work there now are left with the mess of others. I've never held a share of any company in my life.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 10, 2024 7:37:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 10, 2024 7:45:10 GMT
You say that Fujitsu shouldn't have any more contracts awarded, so shouldn't the same go for the Post Office, same scandal, same punishment, and as the PO only has 1 contract that shouldn't go on? I didn't say that at all, you're literally putting words into my mouth. I said, that given the huge failure by Fujitsu to it's customer (the Post Office) and the fact that a court judge accused Fujitsu of lying under oath, it is not unreasonable to ask why Fujitsu continued to receive further contracts or contract extensions, without any form of scrutiny from the Government. That's not a call for them not to receive any more contracts per se, but rather it's calling out the people who continued to instruct them as if absolutely nothing whatsoever had happened. At the very least, an extra level of due diligence was now required based on what had happened but seemingly nobody seemed to think it was necessary. If a government had contracted an aircraft manufacturer to make planes for it's national fleet and one of those aeroplanes had spectacularly crashed and in the investigation of the crash, a judge accused the aeroplane manufacturer of lying and attempting a cover up, don't you think the public would expect the Government to have a bit of a closer look at the manufacturer before awarding them any more contracts? My point isn't really about Fujitsu per se but rather, it's about those individuals who continued to instruct them, without seemingly giving them a second glance, once the cat was out of the bag. Apologies I misinterpreted your response.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2024 7:53:13 GMT
Apparently Sunak is going to announce they will pass legislation to quash all convictions. That’s going further than just pardoning them all and this is unprecedented. It means they see the victims of this scandal as more wronged than homosexuals criminally convicted for being gay, who were only pardoned. Surely this isn’t right and will open a can of worms for others wronged in different scandals who will then demand more.
It also risks exonerating the small numbers who did have their hands in the till. Not to mention the huge constitutional problems of the government blanketly overturning decisions by our supposedly independent judiciary. What precedent does this set?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 10, 2024 7:55:04 GMT
Which shows there are good, hard-working people there, producing results that customers want. Just because there was a very small group of charlatans there many years ago, doesn't mean there is now does it ?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2024 7:57:47 GMT
Which shows there are good, hard-working people there, producing results that customers want. Just because there was a very small group of charlatans there many years ago, doesn't mean there is now does it ? Or, it shows they are well connected to people with power to award such contracts. Like PPE providers!
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jan 10, 2024 7:59:08 GMT
Apparently Sunak is going to announce they will pass legislation to quash all convictions. That’s going further than just pardoning them all and this is unprecedented. It means they see the victims of this scandal as more wronged than homosexuals criminally convicted for being gay, who were only pardoned. Surely this isn’t right and will open a can of worms for others wronged in different scandals who will then demand more. Government action at its very worst. Ignore the scandal for years then rush through bad laws in a knee jerk reaction to a public outcry following a TV drama. Leadership? You have got to be joking!
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jan 10, 2024 8:26:12 GMT
Some harrowing tales on bbc now from 7 subpostmasters.
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jan 10, 2024 8:35:01 GMT
Never mind handing the bloody medal back,the money she gets should be stopped and she should be jailed.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2024 8:42:44 GMT
Apparently Sunak is going to announce they will pass legislation to quash all convictions. That’s going further than just pardoning them all and this is unprecedented. It means they see the victims of this scandal as more wronged than homosexuals criminally convicted for being gay, who were only pardoned. Surely this isn’t right and will open a can of worms for others wronged in different scandals who will then demand more. It also risks exonerating the small numbers who did have their hands in the till. Not to mention the huge constitutional problems of the government blanketly overturning decisions by our supposedly independent judiciary. What precedent does this set? It's a very difficult one Oggy. In this case a pardon is not enough. In any case, some of the victims,as U understand it, ate not happy with a blanket pardon , which , in a sense, individually and psychologically is a non- event...they want individual exonerated through the courts.....they have had 20 years of injustice .. to have to it overturned ( disregarded?) over night is not enough. I obviously agree with you on the separation of powers and wider implications but by some means the authorities have got to do the right thing....and as quickly as possible......is the alternative to let the law take its course which would have to be on a case by case basis. Perhaps you do both is the answer, if that's logically possible.
|
|