This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
You don't seem nearly so exercised about slandering of citizens when it is Roger talking about hartlepool I wonder why
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
Casino tees them up for you, and you hit them straight and true down the fairway of Political Betting.
I'm very disappointed not to have yet read a concerted attempt to blame SKS for the failure to prosecute in the PO scandal. Surely, as DPP during some of the relevant time, it's all SKS's fault?
People tried that a few months ago.
They thought it was the DPP who prosecuted the cases, they went to silent when I pointed out they were private prosecutions.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and the victims.
Authorities will always protect their own. Those at the top know this and encourage it. Why? Because it would be bad for morale if they didn't.
Same story for social workers, customs officers, medics, etc.
The biggest sin of all is to bring the whole f*cking sh*tshow into disrepute. In such circumstances, some poor b*stard who didn't understand the (real) rules and went "too far" (e.g. Harold Shipman) can get disowned and left to swing (eventually).
Are you implying Shipman was just an outlier? I think that’s ridiculous. He was a serial killer. I guess you are referring to previous times when a doctor might ease the passing of someone near death? Shipman killed hundreds who were nowhere near death, because he could.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
It’s not just Hillsborough though. Liverpool’s decline as a city was mainly down to appalling industrial relations and terrible local councillors. And, that was the responsibility of Liverpudlians.
The only thing you get from Liverpudlians any time you point out their behaviour to them is "Hillsborough" and raw abuse.
One can only conclude that being wronged against has become part of their culture, probably to avoid having to face up to their own failings, and they channel a secret hatred of themselves into rage at others.
Because it is a legitimate grievance "Hillsborough" is enough of a justification for it to last several generations.
Liverpool is a city and culture that revels in its victim status and uses it as a shield for why it's such a shit hole rather than looking within at their own failings and voting in politicians who are knowingly corrupt but because they have the correct colour rosette they win by default. It's always someone else's fault, never their own fault for, you know, being chronically lazy and unemployed.
Yep, basically true. And they absolutely can't handle it being pointed out.
That said, I do like some of the shipbuilding heritage, port vibe and music from Liverpool- it's not all bad - but fucking get a grip guys.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
Shit for brains Sean pops up.
The difference is Liverpool fans did serve time in prison for Heysel.
I’m not Sean
The point I’m making is that you NEVER mention Heysel. Ever. Like it never happened
Your team and its often loathsome fans has a bad reputation everywhere for a reason: you killed nearly 40 people out of sheer drunken thuggery
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
Shit for brains Sean pops up.
The difference is Liverpool fans did serve time in prison for Heysel.
Group identity is strong isn't it, particularly in football?
It's fascinating how your behaviour completely changes when Liverpool FC comes up, and you act just like one of them, which isn't really you at all.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
You are both right to an extent. Lots went wrong at Hillsborough and lots was covered up. Yet there is a certain attitude in Liverpool, as exemplified yet again at the weekend, that is it odds with the rest of the nation. You would think no other football disasters happened. Liverpool fans died at Hillsborough mainly because of the behaviour of football fans for the previous twenty years making segregation and fences essential. Fans such as those who rioted at Heysel, killing 40 odd Italians. Who were they fans of again? Oh yes, Liverpool.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
You should have seen the paperwork that sub-postmasters had to complete before they automated it - some of the most horrendous forms full of little boxes that have ever been devised!
As I recall there was a prior attempt at installing the Fujitsu system, in partnership with the government's own DSS department, which failed, costing a large amount of money yet they couldn't get it to work. That it was a complete disaster was widely known internally at the time. The government pulled out, and the PO and Fujitsu had another go; this second installation was the one that led to all the problems; by the time the court cases were beginning to emerge, Counters was increasingly arms length from the rest of the corporation in readiness for privatisation, and the issue didn't hit the media until after I'd left, so I don't know much more.
Vennells came in when the problem already existed and went on to become CEO; from what we can deduce from the media coverage (particularly the excellent R4 long-documentary), she was the type of ambitious outsider who directed and trusted her team to make problems go away for her, and she never gave it the emerging scandal the attention it needed, nor had the mental independence to ask the right questions at the time. With Fujitsu not telling the Post Office the truth and with a hierarchical command-and-control management style where passing bad news up the line wasn't appreciated, it is possible that only bits and pieces of the developing sorry tale came to the attention of the directors. Vennels started her career at Unilever (which I know a little as I also applied to work for them and turned them down), which is a company where marketing is the top dog, and Vennells certainly threw herself into all the promotional and marketing side of the business, when she became CEO. Having come up through a marketing route I doubt that IT or legal issues were her strong points. Nevetheless all of this is no excuse, and the top team's conduct even after the true scale of the scandal came to light deserve proper condemnation.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
Unfortunately, the same pattern of behaviour is replicated across almost all institutions, such as the NHS, child “protection” services, police forces, political parties, churches, etc.
The instinctive response to wrongdoing is to cover it up, and to punish those who reveal it.
Two awkward bits of human/British psyche combining in an unhealthy way.
We (and I suspect this is fundamentally human but worse in Britain) don't like external checks and balances. So the Post Office, Ofsted etc get to mark their own homework and don't pick up on small fixable issues.
Then there's the "off with their heads tendency", strengthened by the (fairly unique) British press. To admit getting anything wrong is to invite ridicule and career death. No wonder people clam up.
Goodness knows what we do about it.
I’ve no reason to doubt that these scandals are replicated in the USA, France, Italy, Belgium etc. That suggests it’s deeply rooted in human nature.
Well, no, it suggests that you reach a conclusion merely because you've no reason to doubt it. I've no reason to doubt that there is life on Alpha Centauri, but that doesn't mean there is.
I lived in Demark and Switzerland for over 30 years. Both countries have a very strong ethos of "correct behaviour" (which makes Switzerland in particular open to accusations of conformism). There was the occasional controversy asbout how a particular Minister or agency behaved, but I don't remember anything like this.
I agree with Stuart's analysis, but also I think that politics in Britain is unhealthily driven by what the media seize on, and this scandal is curiously un-newsworthy. People scattered around the country were maligned and ruined, but no one community where you could make a story out of interviewing dozens of victims. People died prematurely - stress, even suicide - but nobody died instantly, unlike a train crash or an explosion. The reasons sound technical and complex - something about a computer system. You can kind of see why journalists mostly move on - but that shouldn't be a reason for the political establishment to shrug it off. There's something called doing one's job, rather than just reacting to the media.
A dry, white collar subject with no culture war angle, no sex, no violence, a long timeframe, no single triggering event. Therefore interest not as high as it ought to be. I'm guilty of this. I didn't do any proper detailed reading about this scandal until quite recently. When I did I could barely believe it and felt bad for not taking the time before.
Incidentally, however bad the Post Office scandal might be - and it is seriously bad, no mistake - in terms of post war scandals it does not compare to 100,000 white girls and boys - or 200,000, or a million - being abused, trafficked, tortured, raped and even murdered by “Asian grooming gangs”
Indeed nothing really compares to the latter. It is off the dial. Which is probably why we never address it in toto. We can’t process it
I'm very disappointed not to have yet read a concerted attempt to blame SKS for the failure to prosecute in the PO scandal. Surely, as DPP during some of the relevant time, it's all SKS's fault?
So you are saying Starmer was in post at the time. Does anyone know if he also had an office? All very concerning, I wonder if the Geordie police could investigate.
Incidentally, however bad the Post Office scandal might be - and it is seriously bad, no mistake - in terms of post war scandals it does not compare to 100,000 white girls and boys - or 200,000, or a million - being abused, trafficked, tortured, raped and even murdered by “Asian grooming gangs”
Indeed nothing really compares to the latter. It is off the dial. Which is probably why we never address it in toto. We can’t process it
And with most nonses being white, that means that the number of kids being abused trafficked tortured raped and murdered will be many many more tomes the numbers you just made up.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
You are a bit bigoted, though. You hate people who arent ultra monarchists, poor people, Scousers, Vegans, eco-activists, anyone who votes Green. You'd see me arrested and beaten up by the police or event stewards for protesting animal rights or climate change whereas I'd be ashamed if that happened to you. Maybe more than a bit bigoted?
Liverpool and Naples are treated and talked about by many in their respective countries in much the same way - with crude stereotypes and with, often, little actual knowledge of the place and its history and contribution.
I know Naples well. I spent much of my childhood and teenage years there. I speak its dialect. My family come from there. It has a long illustrious history - a kingdom, one of the great cities of Europe. It has had very hard times and has been plagued by corrupt incompetent politicians and crime and some of this is the fault of Neapolitans themselves. But not all of it. It has suffered from condescension and abuse and neglect and a sort of ugly prejudice by those not wanting to dig beneath the surface. There was a fair amount of schadenfreude amongst Neapolitans when the corruption scandals ("Operazione Mani Pulite") first erupted in Milan.
It is a great city which has done much to improve itself in recent years - wonderful art, architecture, music, food and a joie de vivre and ballsy humour which is well nigh impossible to capture in English.
Liverpool seems to me to be similar. It is possible to criticise the football fans who behaved so badly at Heysel while also feeling appalled at the way the families of the 97 fans who died at Hillsborough were treated. In part, I think they were treated in that way because of ugly prejudices and an assumption that they were milking the tragedy.
The authorities did the same to the Aberfan families. If you have not read this - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/ - please do. The authorities accused those parents who petitioned for compensation higher than the £500 originally offered as “seeking to capitalize” on the tragedy.
There is an ugliness there - and it is not in the victims or their families.
On topic, what makes the issue around the bonus scheme for the Post Office Board so revolting is the fact that at the same time these people are still arguing to pay as little compensation as possible to the innocent victims.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
It’s not just Hillsborough though. Liverpool’s decline as a city was mainly down to appalling industrial relations and terrible local councillors. And, that was the responsibility of Liverpudlians.
The only thing you get from Liverpudlians any time you point out their behaviour to them is "Hillsborough" and raw abuse.
One can only conclude that being wronged against has become part of their culture, probably to avoid having to face up to their own failings, and they channel a secret hatred of themselves into rage at others.
Because it is a legitimate grievance "Hillsborough" is enough of a justification for it to last several generations.
Liverpool is a city and culture that revels in its victim status and uses it as a shield for why it's such a shit hole rather than looking within at their own failings and voting in politicians who are knowingly corrupt but because they have the correct colour rosette they win by default. It's always someone else's fault, never their own fault for, you know, being chronically lazy and unemployed.
Yep, basically true. And they absolutely can't handle it being pointed out.
That said, I do like some of the shipbuilding heritage, port vibe and music from Liverpool- it's not all bad - but fucking get a grip guys.
Or things will never change.
It having cheap housing is also working in its favour, lots of northern tech and junior finance workers have discovered they can buy actual houses with gardens for under £150k nearby to local amenities and public transport to Manchester for 2 or 3 days per week. It won't be long until the victim status is gone and that element of the city is just priced out and shuffled on.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
You are a bit bigoted, though. You hate people who arent ultra monarchists, poor people, Scousers, Vegans, eco-activists, anyone who votes Green. You'd see me arrested and beaten up by the police or event stewards for protesting animal rights or climate change whereas I'd be ashamed if that happened to you. Maybe more than a bit bigoted?
I’ve come to realise that it’s a spoof account. Nobody could be as misanthropic and unhappy with the world in real life. They wouldn’t get through the day.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
You are a bit bigoted, though. You hate people who arent ultra monarchists, poor people, Scousers, Vegans, eco-activists, anyone who votes Green. You'd see me arrested and beaten up by the police or event stewards for protesting animal rights or climate change whereas I'd be ashamed if that happened to you. Maybe more than a bit bigoted?
Err, no.
I think you just take yourself, and what I say on here, a little bit too seriously.
Good morning all. Well after a warm sunny Sunday, a wet and grey Bank Holiday Monday. A day for doing nothing.
However, I will be cheered up if the Mackems fail to make the playoffs. Bad enough that the Smoggies are there already.
Yep, the Boro are heading back to the Premier League to whop the arses of the Saudis on behalf of humanitarians across the globe.
Oh, I can't support the Toon under their current ownership. Wishing to see the local rivals fail is something I can cling on to.
And on a more positive note, The Heed are in the final of the Trophy.
Yes, I can honestly say I’d rather support the Boro languishing in the Championship under Steve Gibson’s ownership rather than see them in the Champions League bankrolled by funds from one of the world’s most repressive regimes.
Incidentally, however bad the Post Office scandal might be - and it is seriously bad, no mistake - in terms of post war scandals it does not compare to 100,000 white girls and boys - or 200,000, or a million - being abused, trafficked, tortured, raped and even murdered by “Asian grooming gangs”
Indeed nothing really compares to the latter. It is off the dial. Which is probably why we never address it in toto. We can’t process it
And with most nonses being white, that means that the number of kids being abused trafficked tortured raped and murdered will be many many more tomes the numbers you just made up.
The Labour MP for Rotherham is responsible for the “one million” statistic. Take it up with her
There are a number of questions which an MP with a bit of gumption - or the press - should be asking in the Commons PDQ of the Business Secretary:-
1. Did the relevant Minister in the Business Department know of the Post Office bonus scheme?
2. Did they approve it?
3. Why and on what basis?
4. Was anyone in the Business Department made aware of what was being said about it in the Accounts?
5. Did they ask about the judge's approval and, if so, what was said?
6. Has legal advice been obtained or is it being obtained about whether or not any offence has been committed contrary to either s.2 (fraud by false representation) or S.4 (fraud by abuse of position) of the Fraud Act 2006?
7. If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that the judge has not referred the issue of a possible offence against the Fraud Act for further investigation. Of course that would mean that the Board would need to resign but why would that be a bad thing?
Reading the letters on this, it seems like the post office had a 'performance metric' on participation in the Inquiry - which they regard as having been met, thus meaning a bonus can be paid. However they overlooked the fact that this also required confirmation from the judge as having been met, this was the failing.
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
I'm expecting a mid-life crisis to be followed by CR: The Woke Years. Come back in a decade or two and he'll (by then probably "they'll") be calling out the Labour leader for being a reactionary establishment red Tory, demanding all cisgender people use 'they' as a pronoun to avoid making the gender-fluid uncomfortable and gluing themself to the track at Silverstone if only they are able to find an eco-friendly adhesive with no link to any companies or families involved in the slave trade or indeed the petrochemical industries.
Kind of like the William Glenn conversion, but in relation to Wokeness.
Come out of the closet, CR - we know this is all just a front for your true, woke, self!
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
As an aside, One Foot In The Grace is over 30 years old. Richard Wilson is 86, so was only 53 when it started. I’m three years younger than that and the idea that I am close to the age of Victor blows me away.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
You are a bit bigoted, though. You hate people who arent ultra monarchists, poor people, Scousers, Vegans, eco-activists, anyone who votes Green. You'd see me arrested and beaten up by the police or event stewards for protesting animal rights or climate change whereas I'd be ashamed if that happened to you. Maybe more than a bit bigoted?
Err, no.
I think you just take yourself, and what I say on here, a little bit too seriously.
Fella, I'd say most people on here feel the same about you. This is the internet, it doesn't do nuance, tone and context so I'm more than willing to believe that that's not the real you, but your posts say otherwise. You sound pretty angry these days.
They weren't wholly guilty for Heysel and they weren't wholly innocent for Hillsborough.
There were many factors involved in the state of football and many factors involved in football hooliganism.
The world is usually complicated and people claiming purity on any issue rarely have much experience.
Yes, the stadium at Heysel was as much an issue as at Hillsborough. The fundamental point about football fan behaviour stands though. There have never been cages at rugby.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
I don't know, but the measurement scale should clearly be reckoned in units of 'casinos'....
Ah, so I've gone from penny slots to a bit video poker so far. I expect I might hit blackjack as I get older but hoping to avoid becoming roulette or especially baccarat. Apologies if my analogies are all a bit craps.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
As an aside, One Foot In The Grace is over 30 years old. Richard Wilson is 86, so was only 53 when it started. I’m three years younger than that and the idea that I am close to the age of Victor blows me away.
Incidentally, however bad the Post Office scandal might be - and it is seriously bad, no mistake - in terms of post war scandals it does not compare to 100,000 white girls and boys - or 200,000, or a million - being abused, trafficked, tortured, raped and even murdered by “Asian grooming gangs”
Indeed nothing really compares to the latter. It is off the dial. Which is probably why we never address it in toto. We can’t process it
You do talk balls sometimes. Might I refer you to the IICSA reports - the final one and the 19 underlying ones, not to mention the Jay report and others. I have read quite a few of them. Have you? There have been reports into child abuse at other places as well. Children have not been abused just by Asian grooming gangs.
There is lots that could have been done - and could still be done - but the claim that we have not tried to process it is simply not true. Lots have tried to ignore it but some of us have tried reading the reports and writing about them in the undoubtedly vain hope that people might pay attention and act. Me, for instance - in a number of headers on here. And people go "oh yes it's awful" and rapidly move on to discuss something else
There are a number of questions which an MP with a bit of gumption - or the press - should be asking in the Commons PDQ of the Business Secretary:-
1. Did the relevant Minister in the Business Department know of the Post Office bonus scheme?
2. Did they approve it?
3. Why and on what basis?
4. Was anyone in the Business Department made aware of what was being said about it in the Accounts?
5. Did they ask about the judge's approval and, if so, what was said?
6. Has legal advice been obtained or is it being obtained about whether or not any offence has been committed contrary to either s.2 (fraud by false representation) or S.4 (fraud by abuse of position) of the Fraud Act 2006?
7. If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that the judge has not referred the issue of a possible offence against the Fraud Act for further investigation. Of course that would mean that the Board would need to resign but why would that be a bad thing?
Reading the letters on this, it seems like the post office had a 'performance metric' on participation in the Inquiry - which they regard as having been met, thus meaning a bonus can be paid. However they overlooked the fact that this also required confirmation from the judge as having been met, this was the failing.
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
I would suggest that when leading a scandal prone and very public organisation it might be wise to follow the rules properly before paying yourself a £450k bonus.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
As an aside, One Foot In The Grace is over 30 years old. Richard Wilson is 86, so was only 53 when it started. I’m three years younger than that and the idea that I am close to the age of Victor blows me away.
Jeez. That IS depressing!!
It is. My younger self imagined Victor in his sixties at least. They could film new episodes now, albeit Victor was killed off.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
The fans responsible for Heysel, or at least a good number of them, served time for it. The debt was paid, justice served. No one ever served time for Hillsborough, so justice was not served.
Morning everyone. How is work going this dreary Monday morning?
PB Brains Trust.
What is the best Greek Island for a family break (4 yr old kid)? Sandy beach and decent hotel/resort.
So many imponderables!
Do you want
1 an airport for direct flights? 2 some history/culture or just sun and sea (no shame in that)? 3 to avoid mass tourism or be part of the crowds? 4 greenery and woods or classic whitewashed towns and windmills? 5 fashionable or don’t care?
There are a number of questions which an MP with a bit of gumption - or the press - should be asking in the Commons PDQ of the Business Secretary:-
1. Did the relevant Minister in the Business Department know of the Post Office bonus scheme?
2. Did they approve it?
3. Why and on what basis?
4. Was anyone in the Business Department made aware of what was being said about it in the Accounts?
5. Did they ask about the judge's approval and, if so, what was said?
6. Has legal advice been obtained or is it being obtained about whether or not any offence has been committed contrary to either s.2 (fraud by false representation) or S.4 (fraud by abuse of position) of the Fraud Act 2006?
7. If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that the judge has not referred the issue of a possible offence against the Fraud Act for further investigation. Of course that would mean that the Board would need to resign but why would that be a bad thing?
Reading the letters on this, it seems like the post office had a 'performance metric' on participation in the Inquiry - which they regard as having been met, thus meaning a bonus can be paid. However they overlooked the fact that this also required confirmation from the judge as having been met, this was the failing.
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
Indeed. With all the organisational restructuring there was a lot of coming and going at the top, which makes pinning the blame on any specific senior person more difficult.
I don't have any torch to carry for Vennells, but she joined the company after the IT system had been devised and implemented and was already - we now know - throwing up errors that were leading to subpostmasters being accused of theft or fraud. She had both the IT supplier and people in her hierarchy telling her everything was fine; meanwhile she got on with the marketing and product development stuff which was her forte and why she was given the top job in the first place.
The entire Post Office has a very severe attitude to any theft or fraud - it had a 'police force' before the actual police were invented by Peel, to counter stagecoach highwaymen, and any sort of theft from the mail has always been a zero tolerance instant dismissal offence. The business had - and I believe the mails business at least still has - legal powers of investigation and prosecution that are unique and go beyond ordinary company powers.
Her failing comes down to not asking the obvious question "how come we have quite so many of these (alleged) fraud and theft cases? Can they all really be true? Can we get someone independent to look into it". And then, it would seem, doing her best to keep a lid on things beyond the point when it should have been obvious that something was badly wrong. The fact that it had been going on for years with a string of earlier cases that had led to 'guilty' verdicts likely contributed to an unfortunate perception that sub-postmaster crime was more prevalent that it actually was. They are 'ordinary' shopkeepers handling large amounts of cash on behalf of a large remote corporation and at the same time as the false cases there will also have been some actual crimes.
We'd all like to think that in the same position we'd have asked the right questions early on, and pursued it doggedly until we got convincing answers. Wouldn't we?
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
The fans responsible for Heysel, or at least a good number of them, served time for it. The debt was paid, justice served. No one ever served time for Hillsborough, so justice was not served.
The positive thing about this 'post office scandal' is that the post office got found out. It is important not to lose sight of that. I also think that the 'cancellation' of Paula Vennells will probably have a positive influence on other CEOs who may be involved in similar things.
She still a Lay Reader, a sort of an assistant priest, in the Church of England, isn’t she?
And this year‘s annual report said that it had been approved by the chairman of the enquiry, when, in fact it hadn’t. Apologies, were given but it was still a deliberate lie.
I think that this story is probably quite complicated - not so much what happened at the start (the abuse of power and miscarriage of justice) but who was responsible for what in the aftermath. Looking at the question of participation in the enquiry, this is going to be difficult. Not sure what is going on with these 'bonuses' but some remuneration is going to be involved.
I'd also challenge the idea that Vennells (or anyone else found to have 'done wrong') should be hounded out of every voluntary position they have.
One of the issues this raises, is that if you are the leader of a large organisation, there are inevitably going to be problems coming up, potentially of this magnitude. If as leader you become a lightning rod for all criticism and then get ruined when it goes wrong; whilst other people below you who are responsible for the problems plod on anonymously and protected by employment law/trade unions etc, then competent people will be put off becoming a leader.
Sorry @darkage, but while I’d agree generally, I think that if the Church is going to retain what’s left of its moral authority ‘something’ ought to be done, and seen to be done, about Vennells. I take the point, too, about defences being provided to members of trade associations, trade unions etc., but if they are guilty, then down they go.
As I understood it, she stepped down from her role as a part time Minister. I see that it would be impossible for her to carry on with that role after what happened at the post office, but I object to her being removed from any position in any organisation.
The prosections started in 2000, that is 7 years before she even joined the Post Office, and 12 years before she became CEO of it.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
As an aside, One Foot In The Grace is over 30 years old. Richard Wilson is 86, so was only 53 when it started. I’m three years younger than that and the idea that I am close to the age of Victor blows me away.
Jeez. That IS depressing!!
It is. My younger self imagined Victor in his sixties at least. They could film new episodes now, albeit Victor was killed off.
I remember learning with great dismay, when I was 37, that Homer Simpson is meant to be about 37
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
The fans responsible for Heysel, or at least a good number of them, served time for it. The debt was paid, justice served. No one ever served time for Hillsborough, so justice was not served.
What about those responsible for the stadium?
I’ve not got a scoobie and it’s not really relevant to the point I made.
Incidentally, however bad the Post Office scandal might be - and it is seriously bad, no mistake - in terms of post war scandals it does not compare to 100,000 white girls and boys - or 200,000, or a million - being abused, trafficked, tortured, raped and even murdered by “Asian grooming gangs”
Indeed nothing really compares to the latter. It is off the dial. Which is probably why we never address it in toto. We can’t process it
You do talk balls sometimes. Might I refer you to the IICSA reports - the final one and the 19 underlying ones, not to mention the Jay report and others. I have read quite a few of them. Have you? There have been reports into child abuse at other places as well. Children have not been abused just by Asian grooming gangs.
There is lots that could have been done - and could still be done - but the claim that we have not tried to process it is simply not true. Lots have tried to ignore it but some of us have tried reading the reports and writing about them in the undoubtedly vain hope that people might pay attention and act. Me, for instance - in a number of headers on here. And people go "oh yes it's awful" and rapidly move on to discuss something else
Yet how many plods and social workers have had action taken against them ?
Its the toleration of criminality which leads to its increase.
There may be only a limited people who will break a law under any circumstance but there's a much greater number who will do so if they think they have nothing to fear by doing so.
There are a number of questions which an MP with a bit of gumption - or the press - should be asking in the Commons PDQ of the Business Secretary:-
1. Did the relevant Minister in the Business Department know of the Post Office bonus scheme?
2. Did they approve it?
3. Why and on what basis?
4. Was anyone in the Business Department made aware of what was being said about it in the Accounts?
5. Did they ask about the judge's approval and, if so, what was said?
6. Has legal advice been obtained or is it being obtained about whether or not any offence has been committed contrary to either s.2 (fraud by false representation) or S.4 (fraud by abuse of position) of the Fraud Act 2006?
7. If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that the judge has not referred the issue of a possible offence against the Fraud Act for further investigation. Of course that would mean that the Board would need to resign but why would that be a bad thing?
Reading the letters on this, it seems like the post office had a 'performance metric' on participation in the Inquiry - which they regard as having been met, thus meaning a bonus can be paid. However they overlooked the fact that this also required confirmation from the judge as having been met, this was the failing.
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
I would suggest that when leading a scandal prone and very public organisation it might be wise to follow the rules properly before paying yourself a £450k bonus.
There is also the fact that their claim they had complied with the metrics was not true because the information they were required to provide had not been. So they lied about that as well as the fact of the judge's approval and knowledge of the scheme. That's quite a lot of lies for a "clumsy error".
Also, frankly, annual reports are public documents and directors have legal obligations with regard to them so we should be entitled to expect them and the GC and the Company Secretary to make the effort to get things accurate.
Worth noting also that these errors were not identified by them. It was only when one of the lawyers acting for one of the families asked a question that the issue was identified.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
You are a bit bigoted, though. You hate people who arent ultra monarchists, poor people, Scousers, Vegans, eco-activists, anyone who votes Green. You'd see me arrested and beaten up by the police or event stewards for protesting animal rights or climate change whereas I'd be ashamed if that happened to you. Maybe more than a bit bigoted?
Err, no.
I think you just take yourself, and what I say on here, a little bit too seriously.
Fella, I'd say most people on here feel the same about you. This is the internet, it doesn't do nuance, tone and context so I'm more than willing to believe that that's not the real you, but your posts say otherwise. You sound pretty angry these days.
I use this site to vent a bit, sometimes without much/any of a filter.
It's not representative of what I'm like in real life, as several pb'ers who've met me will attest to, but we're all very interested in politics and issues on here, and it's a passionate and intense subject, and my wife can only take so much.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
As an aside, One Foot In The Grace is over 30 years old. Richard Wilson is 86, so was only 53 when it started. I’m three years younger than that and the idea that I am close to the age of Victor blows me away.
Jeez. That IS depressing!!
It is. My younger self imagined Victor in his sixties at least. They could film new episodes now, albeit Victor was killed off.
“ The character was created specifically for Wilson, with whom Renwick had worked on the series Hot Metal, though Wilson initially turned the part down as at 53, he felt he was too young to play the 60-year-old Meldrew. “
Morning everyone. How is work going this dreary Monday morning?
PB Brains Trust.
What is the best Greek Island for a family break (4 yr old kid)? Sandy beach and decent hotel/resort.
Rhodes or Corfu IMO. Very family friendly and good all inclusive resorts.
Corfu is nightmarishly crowded and touristy. Rhodes is a better choice of those two as it’s big enough to swallow the tourists plus it has much more culture, beautiful temples etc. And you can find big resorts if you want them
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Why do PB allow you to write such prejudicial nonsense without sanction? You wouldn't stereotype a specific race or creed, so why is it acceptable for the citizens of a city you don't like to be slandered by you?
Anyway off to polish my "flag".
I am describing the culture of the city. And I have said not all are like that, but many are.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
The people of Liverpool are utterly distraught that you "are disinclined to lift a finger to help them". How will they cope?
By trying to ban me and call me a bigot, it seems.
Banning you would mean we can't ridicule you. Where's the fun in that?
I don't mind a bit of ridicule. It's probably healthy at some level.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
You are a bit bigoted, though. You hate people who arent ultra monarchists, poor people, Scousers, Vegans, eco-activists, anyone who votes Green. You'd see me arrested and beaten up by the police or event stewards for protesting animal rights or climate change whereas I'd be ashamed if that happened to you. Maybe more than a bit bigoted?
Err, no.
I think you just take yourself, and what I say on here, a little bit too seriously.
Fella, I'd say most people on here feel the same about you. This is the internet, it doesn't do nuance, tone and context so I'm more than willing to believe that that's not the real you, but your posts say otherwise. You sound pretty angry these days.
I use this site to vent a bit, sometimes without much/any of a filter.
It's not representative of what I'm like in real life, as several pb'ers who've met me will attest to, but we're all very interested in politics and issues on here, and it's a passionate and intense subject, and my wife can only take so much.
We all come on here to let off steam (see the Collected Works of Malcomg Esq) don’t worry about it
Tho you do seem a little more dyspeptic than usual, but you have also explained your new job is stressing you out bigtime
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
With the background being, that the system was sold to the higher-ups as a means to detect fraud, so they thought it was brilliant that so much fraud was being detected.
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
Remember also that they'd just automated something that previously had been a horrendously complicated form-filling exercise which could quite fairly be described as Dickensian. As a new entrant I had spent a couple of days in the 1980s finding out about it, but I never used it - but would guess that if you wanted to fiddle the paper records it may not have been that difficult - certainly a lot less difficult than fiddling an automated system where transactions are recorded at the point of sale. So when they automated it and the new system started throwing up anomalies, thinking that it might have uncovered a pattern of long-standing dishonesty that had been going on for years wasn't an increadible assumption. Especially because everyone involved, from the software designers through Fujitsu management through Post Office management would *want* to believe this in preference to believing that they'd just spent years and a squillion quid implementing a system that didn't work.
There are a number of questions which an MP with a bit of gumption - or the press - should be asking in the Commons PDQ of the Business Secretary:-
1. Did the relevant Minister in the Business Department know of the Post Office bonus scheme?
2. Did they approve it?
3. Why and on what basis?
4. Was anyone in the Business Department made aware of what was being said about it in the Accounts?
5. Did they ask about the judge's approval and, if so, what was said?
6. Has legal advice been obtained or is it being obtained about whether or not any offence has been committed contrary to either s.2 (fraud by false representation) or S.4 (fraud by abuse of position) of the Fraud Act 2006?
7. If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that the judge has not referred the issue of a possible offence against the Fraud Act for further investigation. Of course that would mean that the Board would need to resign but why would that be a bad thing?
Reading the letters on this, it seems like the post office had a 'performance metric' on participation in the Inquiry - which they regard as having been met, thus meaning a bonus can be paid. However they overlooked the fact that this also required confirmation from the judge as having been met, this was the failing.
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
Indeed. With all the organisational restructuring there was a lot of coming and going at the top, which makes pinning the blame on any specific senior person more difficult.
I don't have any torch to carry for Vennells, but she joined the company after the IT system had been devised and implemented and was already - we now know - throwing up errors that were leading to subpostmasters being accused of theft or fraud. She had both the IT supplier and people in her hierarchy telling her everything was fine; meanwhile she got on with the marketing and product development stuff which was her forte and why she was given the top job in the first place.
The entire Post Office has a very severe attitude to any theft or fraud - it had a 'police force' before the actual police were invented by Peel, to counter stagecoach highwaymen, and any sort of theft from the mail has always been a zero tolerance instant dismissal offence. The business had - and I believe the mails business at least still has - legal powers of investigation and prosecution that are unique and go beyond ordinary company powers.
Her failing comes down to not asking the obvious question "how come we have quite so many of these (alleged) fraud and theft cases? Can they all really be true? Can we get someone independent to look into it". And then, it would seem, doing her best to keep a lid on things beyond the point when it should have been obvious that something was badly wrong. The fact that it had been going on for years with a string of earlier cases that had led to 'guilty' verdicts likely contributed to an unfortunate perception that sub-postmaster crime was more prevalent that it actually was. They are 'ordinary' shopkeepers handling large amounts of cash on behalf of a large remote corporation and at the same time as the false cases there will also have been some actual crimes.
We'd all like to think that in the same position we'd have asked the right questions early on, and pursued it doggedly until we got convincing answers. Wouldn't we?
I think this is a really good summary of the situation, i'd agree with it. Her failing was probably not digging in to this enough and asking the right questions - and also failing to foresee and manage the risk of reputational catastrophe. But she has now been ruined whilst those responsible for the problem are either still in the organisation or have moved anonymously on, with no reputational damage.
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
The problem is you should never ever rely on just one system. They should have sense checked what it was apparently telling them. They did not do so. They did not do so because it was telling them what they wanted to hear. That is an investigative blunder of the first order. From that everything else flowed.
The problems with the system started very early on and even the IT guys knew that there was an issue because they were trying to correct its flaws at the same time as they were saying that it was reliable. How on earth the investigators did not know that is unbelievable to me. They were not asking questions which they should have been asking.
FFS, she held a sword for half an hour and wore a nice dress. The Tory Party voted against her TWICE!
You lot really are going to lose in a landslide if you think this is the solution, not the policies or ideas, or any of the other people. You've been in Government far too long.
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
Remember also that they'd just automated something that previously had been a horrendously complicated form-filling exercise which could quite fairly be described as Dickensian. As a new entrant I had spent a couple of days in the 1980s finding out about it, but I never used it - but would guess that if you wanted to fiddle the paper records it may not have been that difficult - certainly a lot less difficult than fiddling an automated system where transactions are recorded at the point of sale. So when they automated it and the new system started throwing up anomalies, thinking that it might have uncovered a pattern of long-standing dishonesty that had been going on for years wasn't an increadible assumption.
I understand that and also they were dealing with cash that is easy to make disappear without trace but at some point the Post Office must have realised that there wasn't any cash missing, or was it not recording when some pensions payments were going out and thought that cash should still be in the PO cash balance?
Software does not make mistakes, the people that wrote it do.
So why are they not in prison?
All software has bugs, it’s the nature of the beast.
That’s not a liability for the developers, that’s a liability for those in charge of deploying it with insufficient testing, from both the vendor and the customer.
Even more so, it’s a liability for those who used the software to harass and prosecute people, while at the same time ignoring evidence from the software developers that there might be serious problems with it.
The idea that holding a sword (weighing about 8lbs - the same weight as many newborns) while wearing a very striking dress for an hour or so makes you fit to be PM is absurd.
On that basis any one of the military chaps who were up for 12 hours wearing swords and hats and managing large horses and some of them playing musical instruments as well should be a shoo-in.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
It’s not just Hillsborough though. Liverpool’s decline as a city was mainly down to appalling industrial relations and terrible local councillors. And, that was the responsibility of Liverpudlians.
Wasn't it more to do with the collapse of the Atlantic shipping trade and its replacement with air freight? You could argue, very successfully that strikes and corruption didn't help at all. But they weren't the root cause.
We've at least seen the so-called "free speech" warriors of which (?) some hang out here, exposed for being charlatans that we long suspected they were.
Call out trans people? Freedom of speech.
Attack immigrants? Freedom of speech.
Accuse SKS of failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville? Freedom of speech.
Hold a yellow placard in the street of London which says not my King? You should be arrested, then deported, then set on fire.
Can someone please have a quiet word with Casino? I don't believe his offensive monologue about Liverpudlians is in the spirit of the site.
You want to cancel me?
How interesting your commitment to free speech is only skin-deep.
You shouldnt be cancelled - just recognised as an obnoxious irrelevant bigot
He's become a Victor Meldrew at a remarkably youthful age, for sure
Whats the standard Meldrew progression? I think Ive gone from near 0% at 40 to 15% at 50. Where should I expect to end up?
I don't know, but the measurement scale should clearly be reckoned in units of 'casinos'....
Ah, so I've gone from penny slots to a bit video poker so far. I expect I might hit blackjack as I get older but hoping to avoid becoming roulette or especially baccarat. Apologies if my analogies are all a bit craps.
Funnily enough I had lunch in Baccarat last Thursday. But I couldn't establish the link between it and the card game or gambling (I can't profess to having spent that long looking into it tbf)
Can somebody who understands this shit explain what, exactly, was wrong with the stupid software?
According to Wikipedia, an investigation found: "The lead investigator for Second Sight claimed that there were about 12,000 communication failures every year, with software defects at 76 branches and old and unreliable hardware.[53] The system had, according to the report, not been tracking money from lottery terminals, tax disc sales or cash machines – and the initial Post Office Ltd investigation had not looked for the cause of the errors, instead accusing the SPMs of theft.[69] The report was dismissed by the Post Office.[71] However, it was leaked to the BBC in September 2014. The BBC's article on the report also said that training on the system was not good enough, that 'equipment was outdated', and that 'power cuts and communication problems made things worse'.[69]" So it may have been as simple as transactions not getting recorded centrally and so a different number in one place compared to another showing up as missing money.
It really does beggar belief. I write fairly simple software across a few languages for data analysis. We have some routine testing, but we still expect it to throw up odd things now and again due to errors. If we get a weird result, we review. If we can't find an error, I'll often rewrite the suspect part in a different way (or get a colleague to do it) to see whether that gets the same answer. If it's still the same answer, we look very hard at the logic and the data, normally taking an individual example and working it through by hand to see whether it works. And this is where the consequence is no more than a bad paper/report and damage to my reputation. For something like this, there should have been full investigation of SPMs reporting errors, with the assumption that they were errors - afterall, those on the take were hardly likely to flag up the discrepancies, were they?
FFS, she held a sword for half an hour and wore a nice dress. The Tory Party voted against her TWICE!
You lot really are going to lose in a landslide if you think this is the solution, not the policies or ideas, or any of the other people. You've been in Government far too long.
I’m not a Tory and I’m not “in government”. I’m a humble flint knapper that makes political observations and predictions. And one such prediction was just after the Corrie when I said “Mordaunt has really raised her profile and will now be a leading candidate to take over from him”
This has nowt to do with her political capabilities - you are quite right that holding a sword for an hour in a nice dress does not make you Abraham Lincoln. But we live in a televisual age of social media virality
Software does not make mistakes, the people that wrote it do.
So why are they not in prison?
All software has bugs, it’s the nature of the beast.
That’s not a liability for the developers, that’s a liability for those in charge of deploying it with insufficient testing, from both the vendor and the customer.
Even more so, it’s a liability for those who used the software to harass and prosecute people, while at the same time ignoring evidence from the software developers that there might be serious problems with it.
Software has bugs because of the people that wrote it.
At what point do the people that wrote it, not he held accountable for not doing anything about it? They should be held accountable, if innocent then fine. But they've never been tried.
At some point the senior management angle doesn't wash.
It is. Amongst the detail, these are the key messages, I think. Is that the plan? To wait until everyone is dead, then quietly bury whatever report is produced while those responsible get away with it and carry on making money? Apparently so... ...“The worst sin towards our fellows is not to hate them. It is to be indifferent to them. For that is the essence of inhumanity.”
It seems to be a characteristic of government, of all political shades, to push the awkward truths way from them, into the shadows.
The infected blood scandal is another, similar example, where government waited for victims to die of the results of state negligence long after causation and culpability were obvious.
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
One of the many things about this that seems odd to me is why the sheer amount of supposedly 'fraudulent' sub postmasters (both the absolute number and as a percentage of the total) thrown up by the system didn't trigger alarm bells as to whether the system was working as it should.
When you audit something, as well as getting immersed in the detail you're supposed to elevate above it at some point and ask yourself, "Ok but does this picture as a whole make sense?" This does not seem to have happened.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
I'd have stopped at word five.
Hmm. I'll save this one for the next time you complain about anyone getting personal at you.
Thanks for my first ever "flag". A badge of honour knowing it was awarded by you.
Liverpool should be nuked and levelled. Maybe we evacuate a few musicians first.
We can then start again. It hasn't worked.
Just because you didn't get a ticket for Eurovision...
You know what they say.. 1st prize 2 tickets to Eurovision 2nd prize 4 tickets to Eurovision....
Morning everyone. How is work going this dreary Monday morning?
PB Brains Trust.
What is the best Greek Island for a family break (4 yr old kid)? Sandy beach and decent hotel/resort.
So many imponderables!
Do you want
1 an airport for direct flights? 2 some history/culture or just sun and sea (no shame in that)? 3 to avoid mass tourism or be part of the crowds? 4 greenery and woods or classic whitewashed towns and windmills? 5 fashionable or don’t care?
1 Yes. 2 some history though we do have a young son so tricky terrain is probably a no-no. 3 don’t mind but not too crowded. 4 the later. 5 Not bothered.
Our first major vacation since kiddo was born so something memorable!
FFS, she held a sword for half an hour and wore a nice dress. The Tory Party voted against her TWICE!
You lot really are going to lose in a landslide if you think this is the solution, not the policies or ideas, or any of the other people. You've been in Government far too long.
I’m not a Tory and I’m not “in government”. I’m a humble flint knapper that makes political observations and predictions. And one such prediction was just after the Corrie when I said “Mordaunt has really raised her profile and will now be a leading candidate to take over from him”
This has nowt to do with her political capabilities - you are quite right that holding a sword for an hour in a nice dress does not make you Abraham Lincoln. But we live in a televisual age of social media virality
It is the worst scandal of my long lifetime. Cyclefree is absolutely right. Those responsible must be held to account for it, and now - not some distant time in the future.
Anything we can do to put pressure on the culprits, which she has clearly identified, should be done.
It's certainly the worst miscarriage of justice. I'd argue the blood scandal was worse still in terms of damage, suffering and (possibly) culpability.
This scandal is like Hillsborough, the authorities protect their own and not the victims.
No one will serve time for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps, but unlike Liverpool we don't have a planet-sized chip on our shoulder and wallow in mawkish sentimentality and ugly self-pity, so we'll focus our efforts on change not bile.
You really are a twat when it comes to Liverpool.
At least 41 lives could have been saved that day if the authorities hadn’t screwed up and then covered it up.
Nothing has changed, nobody has served time for the deaths of 97 people.
How many lives could have been saved at Heysel if so many Liverpool fans weren’t drunken, homicidal louts?
It’s incredible how much Liverpool FC witters on about Hillsborough (which was undeniably awful) yet NEVER mentions Heysel. It’s not like they were centuries apart
Shit for brains Sean pops up.
The difference is Liverpool fans did serve time in prison for Heysel.
I’m not Sean
The point I’m making is that you NEVER mention Heysel. Ever. Like it never happened
Your team and its often loathsome fans has a bad reputation everywhere for a reason: you killed nearly 40 people out of sheer drunken thuggery
Evertonians mention Heysel all the time. The finest team in Europe (EFC 1984-7) were banned from all European competition for no reason at all. Just weeks after we'd won the Cup Winners Cup in Rotterdam with barely a hint of trouble of any kind.
There are a number of questions which an MP with a bit of gumption - or the press - should be asking in the Commons PDQ of the Business Secretary:-
1. Did the relevant Minister in the Business Department know of the Post Office bonus scheme?
2. Did they approve it?
3. Why and on what basis?
4. Was anyone in the Business Department made aware of what was being said about it in the Accounts?
5. Did they ask about the judge's approval and, if so, what was said?
6. Has legal advice been obtained or is it being obtained about whether or not any offence has been committed contrary to either s.2 (fraud by false representation) or S.4 (fraud by abuse of position) of the Fraud Act 2006?
7. If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that the judge has not referred the issue of a possible offence against the Fraud Act for further investigation. Of course that would mean that the Board would need to resign but why would that be a bad thing?
Reading the letters on this, it seems like the post office had a 'performance metric' on participation in the Inquiry - which they regard as having been met, thus meaning a bonus can be paid. However they overlooked the fact that this also required confirmation from the judge as having been met, this was the failing.
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
Indeed. With all the organisational restructuring there was a lot of coming and going at the top, which makes pinning the blame on any specific senior person more difficult.
I don't have any torch to carry for Vennells, but she joined the company after the IT system had been devised and implemented and was already - we now know - throwing up errors that were leading to subpostmasters being accused of theft or fraud. She had both the IT supplier and people in her hierarchy telling her everything was fine; meanwhile she got on with the marketing and product development stuff which was her forte and why she was given the top job in the first place.
The entire Post Office has a very severe attitude to any theft or fraud - it had a 'police force' before the actual police were invented by Peel, to counter stagecoach highwaymen, and any sort of theft from the mail has always been a zero tolerance instant dismissal offence. The business had - and I believe the mails business at least still has - legal powers of investigation and prosecution that are unique and go beyond ordinary company powers.
Her failing comes down to not asking the obvious question "how come we have quite so many of these (alleged) fraud and theft cases? Can they all really be true? Can we get someone independent to look into it". And then, it would seem, doing her best to keep a lid on things beyond the point when it should have been obvious that something was badly wrong. The fact that it had been going on for years with a string of earlier cases that had led to 'guilty' verdicts likely contributed to an unfortunate perception that sub-postmaster crime was more prevalent that it actually was. They are 'ordinary' shopkeepers handling large amounts of cash on behalf of a large remote corporation and at the same time as the false cases there will also have been some actual crimes.
We'd all like to think that in the same position we'd have asked the right questions early on, and pursued it doggedly until we got convincing answers. Wouldn't we?
I think this is a really good summary of the situation, i'd agree with it. Her failing was probably not digging in to this enough and asking the right questions - and also failing to foresee and manage the risk of reputational catastrophe. But she has now been ruined whilst those responsible for the problem are either still in the organisation or have moved anonymously on, with no reputational damage.
She's hardly been ruined, although her reputation certainly has been. But she's retired with her pension and £millions of bonuses, and still has her honour. She does deserve to be made an example of but her faults are mostly of incompetence and complacency rather than malice.
The positive thing about this 'post office scandal' is that the post office got found out. It is important not to lose sight of that. I also think that the 'cancellation' of Paula Vennells will probably have a positive influence on other CEOs who may be involved in similar things.
She still a Lay Reader, a sort of an assistant priest, in the Church of England, isn’t she?
And this year‘s annual report said that it had been approved by the chairman of the enquiry, when, in fact it hadn’t. Apologies, were given but it was still a deliberate lie.
I think that this story is probably quite complicated - not so much what happened at the start (the abuse of power and miscarriage of justice) but who was responsible for what in the aftermath. Looking at the question of participation in the enquiry, this is going to be difficult. Not sure what is going on with these 'bonuses' but some remuneration is going to be involved.
I'd also challenge the idea that Vennells (or anyone else found to have 'done wrong') should be hounded out of every voluntary position they have.
One of the issues this raises, is that if you are the leader of a large organisation, there are inevitably going to be problems coming up, potentially of this magnitude. If as leader you become a lightning rod for all criticism and then get ruined when it goes wrong; whilst other people below you who are responsible for the problems plod on anonymously and protected by employment law/trade unions etc, then competent people will be put off becoming a leader.
Sorry @darkage, but while I’d agree generally, I think that if the Church is going to retain what’s left of its moral authority ‘something’ ought to be done, and seen to be done, about Vennells. I take the point, too, about defences being provided to members of trade associations, trade unions etc., but if they are guilty, then down they go.
As I understood it, she stepped down from her role as a part time Minister. I see that it would be impossible for her to carry on with that role after what happened at the post office, but I object to her being removed from any position in any organisation.
The prosections started in 2000, that is 7 years before she even joined the Post Office, and 12 years before she became CEO of it.
Point noted re her time in office, but as someone else pointed out, why didn't she, apparently, ask any questions.
Morning everyone. How is work going this dreary Monday morning?
PB Brains Trust.
What is the best Greek Island for a family break (4 yr old kid)? Sandy beach and decent hotel/resort.
So many imponderables!
Do you want
1 an airport for direct flights? 2 some history/culture or just sun and sea (no shame in that)? 3 to avoid mass tourism or be part of the crowds? 4 greenery and woods or classic whitewashed towns and windmills? 5 fashionable or don’t care?
1 Yes. 2 some history though we do have a young son so tricky terrain is probably a no-no. 3 don’t mind but not too crowded. 4 the later. 5 Not bothered.
Our first major vacation since kiddo was born so something memorable!
Then I would go for Rhodes. It has all those. There are a few tacky/crowded areas but drive a couple of miles and you can find sweet fishing towns which aren’t TOO touristy
And Rhodes City is a wonder. A beautiful complete medieval town. Again you won’t exactly be alone but it is still somehow magical
You’ll need to hire a car for a day or two to see some of the lonelier temples/lovelier castles
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
One of the many things about this that seems odd to me is why the sheer amount of supposedly 'fraudulent' sub postmasters (both the absolute number and as a percentage of the total) thrown up by the system didn't trigger alarm bells as to whether the system was working as it should.
When you audit something, as well as getting immersed in the detail you're supposed to elevate above it at some point and ask yourself, "Ok but does this picture as a whole make sense?" This does not seem to have happened.
Exactly this. The art of investigation is to know the detail inside out but also look at the picture as a whole. And test test test all the assumptions and statements you are making. That clearly did not happen here.
The problem with this scandal is that it is complicated. What actually happened? AIUI the Fujitsu system was supposed to provide a management system that would operate the post office for people for whom that was only a part of their business, a counter in a shop. It was designed to allow them to deal with the various post office functions such as making deposits and savings in Post Office savings accounts, the huge range of government services and charges that have to be paid and actual post office functions like parcels and letters.
Somehow, and I have yet to read an account of this that makes much sense, the system created "holes" in the accounts, deficits that did not actually exist but which the sub-post masters were held to account for. And that is where it gets absurdly complicated because it surely should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the results that the service did not actually have these deficits. Put it another way, had those deficits been paid the service would have been performing quite exceptionally with highly unlikely levels of turnover and profit. But somehow the rubbish out of the systems was not identified, no one would accept that the system was making it up.
The other thing that was odd about it is that the sub-postmasters were not naïve fools about business or accounts. They, largely, ran their own discrete businesses with their own accounts, profits and losses, bank accounts etc. It should have been obvious to them that if these deficits were real the post office counter was running at a ridiculous loss. And where was the accounting for these deficits? Where were the counterbalancing surpluses, who got them? Presumably the Post Office. Did they not understand their own accounts well enough to realise something was going wrong?
I think @Cyclefree may be being a little harsh with the lawyers. They would have been told very little, that there was a deficit on the accounts and that the explanation was that the sub-postmaster had dipped into it and stolen money that they held in trust but did not belong to them. What more does a prosecutor need? But the accountants must surely have realised that something was not right, that there were deficits with no corresponding surpluses, where was the evidence of the money actually hitting the accounts of the sub-postmasters? And yet, concerns expressed were disregarded because so much had been invested in the system that it was impossible to accept that it did not work. There are many lessons to be learned here as well as an injustice to be made good as soon as possible.
This feels right. I suspect the managers probably did initially think the staff, not the software was at fault. Then they doubled down long after there was doubt and subsequent actual evidence that the staff were falsely accused.
One of the many things about this that seems odd to me is why the sheer amount of supposedly 'fraudulent' sub postmasters (both the absolute number and as a percentage of the total) thrown up by the system didn't trigger alarm bells as to whether the system was working as it should.
When you audit something, as well as getting immersed in the detail you're supposed to elevate above it at some point and ask yourself, "Ok but does this picture as a whole make sense?" This does not seem to have happened.
If you've ever worked in any sort of big company or other large enterprise, you should know already that the ability to stand back and perceive, together with the courage to actually ask, the question that no-one wants to hear isn't remarkably commonplace.
Liverpool is a fantastic city and does very well exploiting both its maritime and musical heritage. Though the old dock areas would have likely not as fared as well for tourists had the council succeeded in building a motorway down the Strand...
Lol. Yes indeed. The Tories have reached a point where being able to stand still for a couple of hours in fancy dress is enough to become a prime candidate for leader.
Comments
They thought it was the DPP who prosecuted the cases, they went to silent when I pointed out they were private prosecutions.
I guess you are referring to previous times when a doctor might ease the passing of someone near death? Shipman killed hundreds who were nowhere near death, because he could.
I was very offended and insulted by the behaviour of Liverpool fans booing the national anthem the day before yesterday. Hillsborough was and is a scandal, that is for sure, and it needs redressing, but (honestly?) I think even if it were this wouldn't go away. No redress would never be enough and/or that legitimate grievance would be replaced by something else in the victim culture: class, snobbery, Fatch etc. There is something profoundly illogical here. The Royal Family had nothing to do with it - they are just a symbol and following through on that by targetting them has made them look disloyal, angry, aggressive and disrespectful and upset a lot of people.
I am now disinclined to lift a finger to help them - unlike I would for Aberfan and the Post Office scandal - which will no doubt reinforce their grievance. So the most likely outcome is that this goes on and on. I think it's important the facts and behaviour are called out so a change can be made.
Think about it.
That said, I do like some of the shipbuilding heritage, port vibe and music from Liverpool- it's not all bad - but fucking get a grip guys.
Or things will never change.
My views are utterly fair comment and based in fact.
The point I’m making is that you NEVER mention Heysel. Ever. Like it never happened
Your team and its often loathsome fans has a bad
reputation everywhere for a reason: you killed nearly 40 people out of sheer drunken thuggery
It's fascinating how your behaviour completely changes when Liverpool FC comes up, and you act just like one of them, which isn't really you at all.
You would think no other football disasters happened. Liverpool fans died at Hillsborough mainly because of the behaviour of football fans for the previous twenty years making segregation and fences essential. Fans such as those who rioted at Heysel, killing 40 odd Italians. Who were they fans of again? Oh yes, Liverpool.
As I recall there was a prior attempt at installing the Fujitsu system, in partnership with the government's own DSS department, which failed, costing a large amount of money yet they couldn't get it to work. That it was a complete disaster was widely known internally at the time. The government pulled out, and the PO and Fujitsu had another go; this second installation was the one that led to all the problems; by the time the court cases were beginning to emerge, Counters was increasingly arms length from the rest of the corporation in readiness for privatisation, and the issue didn't hit the media until after I'd left, so I don't know much more.
Vennells came in when the problem already existed and went on to become CEO; from what we can deduce from the media coverage (particularly the excellent R4 long-documentary), she was the type of ambitious outsider who directed and trusted her team to make problems go away for her, and she never gave it the emerging scandal the attention it needed, nor had the mental independence to ask the right questions at the time. With Fujitsu not telling the Post Office the truth and with a hierarchical command-and-control management style where passing bad news up the line wasn't appreciated, it is possible that only bits and pieces of the developing sorry tale came to the attention of the directors. Vennels started her career at Unilever (which I know a little as I also applied to work for them and turned them down), which is a company where marketing is the top dog, and Vennells certainly threw herself into all the promotional and marketing side of the business, when she became CEO. Having come up through a marketing route I doubt that IT or legal issues were her strong points. Nevetheless all of this is no excuse, and the top team's conduct even after the true scale of the scandal came to light deserve proper condemnation.
I do mind the T and C word a bit though, and being called a bigot. We're better than that.
This subject seems to make otherwise normal people totally irrational.
Indeed nothing really compares to the latter. It is off the dial. Which is probably why we never address it in toto. We can’t process it
And on a more positive note, The Heed are in the final of the Trophy.
I know Naples well. I spent much of my childhood and teenage years there. I speak its dialect. My family come from there. It has a long illustrious history - a kingdom, one of the great cities of Europe. It has had very hard times and has been plagued by corrupt incompetent politicians and crime and some of this is the fault of Neapolitans themselves. But not all of it. It has suffered from condescension and abuse and neglect and a sort of ugly prejudice by those not wanting to dig beneath the surface. There was a fair amount of schadenfreude amongst Neapolitans when the corruption scandals ("Operazione Mani Pulite") first erupted in Milan.
It is a great city which has done much to improve itself in recent years - wonderful art, architecture, music, food and a joie de vivre and ballsy humour which is well nigh impossible to capture in English.
Liverpool seems to me to be similar. It is possible to criticise the football fans who behaved so badly at Heysel while also feeling appalled at the way the families of the 97 fans who died at Hillsborough were treated. In part, I think they were treated in that way because of ugly prejudices and an assumption that they were milking the tragedy.
The authorities did the same to the Aberfan families. If you have not read this - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/ - please do. The authorities accused those parents who petitioned for compensation higher than the £500 originally offered as “seeking to capitalize” on the tragedy.
There is an ugliness there - and it is not in the victims or their families.
On topic, what makes the issue around the bonus scheme for the Post Office Board so revolting is the fact that at the same time these people are still arguing to pay as little compensation as possible to the innocent victims.
They weren't wholly guilty for Heysel and they weren't wholly innocent for Hillsborough.
There were many factors involved in the state of football and many factors involved in football hooliganism.
The world is usually complicated and people claiming purity on any issue rarely have much experience.
I think you just take yourself, and what I say on here, a little bit too seriously.
PB Brains Trust.
What is the best Greek Island for a family break (4 yr old kid)? Sandy beach and decent hotel/resort.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-sex-abuse-gangs-could-5114029
I think it falls in to the category of being a clumsy error compounding existing reputational problems, but not something that heads should roll and people sent to prison for.
It is worth pointing out that the existing chief executive only joined in 2019.
Kind of like the William Glenn conversion, but in relation to Wokeness.
Come out of the closet, CR - we know this is all just a front for your true, woke, self!
Grow up
There is lots that could have been done - and could still be done - but the claim that we have not tried to process it is simply not true. Lots have tried to ignore it but some of us have tried reading the reports and writing about them in the undoubtedly vain hope that people might pay attention and act. Me, for instance - in a number of headers on here. And people go "oh yes it's awful" and rapidly move on to discuss something else
They could film new episodes now, albeit Victor was killed off.
Do you want
1 an airport for direct flights?
2 some history/culture or just sun and sea (no shame in that)?
3 to avoid mass tourism or be part of the crowds?
4 greenery and woods or classic whitewashed towns and windmills?
5 fashionable or don’t care?
I don't have any torch to carry for Vennells, but she joined the company after the IT system had been devised and implemented and was already - we now know - throwing up errors that were leading to subpostmasters being accused of theft or fraud. She had both the IT supplier and people in her hierarchy telling her everything was fine; meanwhile she got on with the marketing and product development stuff which was her forte and why she was given the top job in the first place.
The entire Post Office has a very severe attitude to any theft or fraud - it had a 'police force' before the actual police were invented by Peel, to counter stagecoach highwaymen, and any sort of theft from the mail has always been a zero tolerance instant dismissal offence. The business had - and I believe the mails business at least still has - legal powers of investigation and prosecution that are unique and go beyond ordinary company powers.
Her failing comes down to not asking the obvious question "how come we have quite so many of these (alleged) fraud and theft cases? Can they all really be true? Can we get someone independent to look into it". And then, it would seem, doing her best to keep a lid on things beyond the point when it should have been obvious that something was badly wrong. The fact that it had been going on for years with a string of earlier cases that had led to 'guilty' verdicts likely contributed to an unfortunate perception that sub-postmaster crime was more prevalent that it actually was. They are 'ordinary' shopkeepers handling large amounts of cash on behalf of a large remote corporation and at the same time as the false cases there will also have been some actual crimes.
We'd all like to think that in the same position we'd have asked the right questions early on, and pursued it doggedly until we got convincing answers. Wouldn't we?
The prosections started in 2000, that is 7 years before she even joined the Post Office, and 12 years before she became CEO of it.
Its the toleration of criminality which leads to its increase.
There may be only a limited people who will break a law under any circumstance but there's a much greater number who will do so if they think they have nothing to fear by doing so.
Also, frankly, annual reports are public documents and directors have legal obligations with regard to them so we should be entitled to expect them and the GC and the Company Secretary to make the effort to get things accurate.
Worth noting also that these errors were not identified by them. It was only when one of the lawyers acting for one of the families asked a question that the issue was identified.
It's not representative of what I'm like in real life, as several pb'ers who've met me will attest to, but we're all very interested in politics and issues on here, and it's a passionate and intense subject, and my wife can only take so much.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Meldrew
Tho you do seem a little more dyspeptic than usual, but you have also explained your new job is stressing you out bigtime
“Penny Mordaunt's sword wielding has made her Rishi Sunak's most dangerous rival
The political Left and Right were united in their praise for the Coronation performance of the Lord President of the Privy Council”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/07/penny-mordaunt-coronation-sword-rishi-sunak/
Take a bow, everyone
The problems with the system started very early on and even the IT guys knew that there was an issue because they were trying to correct its flaws at the same time as they were saying that it was reliable. How on earth the investigators did not know that is unbelievable to me. They were not asking questions which they should have been asking.
So why are they not in prison?
Can I join the elite club now? I really want to join, please can I join?
You lot really are going to lose in a landslide if you think this is the solution, not the policies or ideas, or any of the other people. You've been in Government far too long.
A rival to Badenoch to be Sunak's successor possibly.
That’s not a liability for the developers, that’s a liability for those in charge of deploying it with insufficient testing, from both the vendor and the customer.
Even more so, it’s a liability for those who used the software to harass and prosecute people, while at the same time ignoring evidence from the software developers that there might be serious problems with it.
On that basis any one of the military chaps who were up for 12 hours wearing swords and hats and managing large horses and some of them playing musical instruments as well should be a shoo-in.
You could argue, very successfully that strikes and corruption didn't help at all.
But they weren't the root cause.
Call out trans people? Freedom of speech.
Attack immigrants? Freedom of speech.
Accuse SKS of failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville? Freedom of speech.
Hold a yellow placard in the street of London which says not my King? You should be arrested, then deported, then set on fire.
It really does beggar belief. I write fairly simple software across a few languages for data analysis. We have some routine testing, but we still expect it to throw up odd things now and again due to errors. If we get a weird result, we review. If we can't find an error, I'll often rewrite the suspect part in a different way (or get a colleague to do it) to see whether that gets the same answer. If it's still the same answer, we look very hard at the logic and the data, normally taking an individual example and working it through by hand to see whether it works. And this is where the consequence is no more than a bad paper/report and damage to my reputation. For something like this, there should have been full investigation of SPMs reporting errors, with the assumption that they were errors - afterall, those on the take were hardly likely to flag up the discrepancies, were they?
This has nowt to do with her political capabilities - you are quite right that holding a sword for an hour in a nice dress does not make you Abraham Lincoln. But we live in a televisual age of social media virality
At what point do the people that wrote it, not he held accountable for not doing anything about it? They should be held accountable, if innocent then fine. But they've never been tried.
At some point the senior management angle doesn't wash.
And I am a Software Engineer.
Amongst the detail, these are the key messages, I think.
Is that the plan? To wait until everyone is dead, then quietly bury whatever report is produced while those responsible get away with it and carry on making money? Apparently so...
...“The worst sin towards our fellows is not to hate them. It is to be indifferent to them. For that is the essence of inhumanity.”
It seems to be a characteristic of government, of all political shades, to push the awkward truths way from them, into the shadows.
The infected blood scandal is another, similar example, where government waited for victims to die of the results of state negligence long after causation and culpability were obvious.
When you audit something, as well as getting immersed in the detail you're supposed to elevate above it at some point and ask yourself, "Ok but does this picture as a whole make sense?" This does not seem to have happened.
2 some history though we do have a young son so tricky terrain is probably a no-no.
3 don’t mind but not too crowded.
4 the later.
5 Not bothered.
Our first major vacation since kiddo was born so something memorable!
Thanks @Leon.
You said how good Liz Truss was.
Yes you are "a Tory"
I'd argue the blood scandal was worse still in terms of damage, suffering and (possibly) culpability.
The finest team in Europe (EFC 1984-7) were banned from all European competition for no
reason at all.
Just weeks after we'd won the Cup Winners Cup in Rotterdam with barely a hint of trouble of any kind.
And Rhodes City is a wonder. A beautiful complete medieval town. Again you won’t exactly be alone but it is still somehow magical
You’ll need to hire a car for a day or two to see some of the lonelier temples/lovelier castles
If that is qualification for high office, we'd have a cabinet full of TV weather forecasters.