There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
"No significant difference in intelligence quotient was seen in 1192 children delivered by forceps (114 midforceps) compared with 1499 who were delivered spontaneously."
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
I never had you down as a sex tourist.
I watch some great tits most mornings, though now it's winter they are often blue tits.
If you go tit-spotting in Senegal, I believe Saly is where you need to aim for.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
State schools don't normally close until mid-late July but private schools close at the end of June/early July, so an election then would hit the Tories most as private school parents are more likely to be Tory than state school parents
Private schools close *whenever they choose to* Hyufd. Which is usually in early July, but can be as early as June.
Also the bit about state schools, a reminder that's state schools in England and Wales, not Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Given the Tory voteshare is lower in Scotland than England and Wales, Scottish Tory voters who have children in private school are likely to be an even higher percentage of the Tory vote in Scotland than the percentage of English and Welsh Tory voters with children in private school.
In NI I would imagine most private school parents vote UUP or Alliance given the tiny Conservative voteshare where they stand in NI
Part of the game of politics is misinformation or disinformation. If you have the decision as to when an election is closed, it seems odd to close off any option at this time. The last polls of 2023 taken between Christmas and New Year show little sign of festive goodwill towards the Conservatives.
I'm sure all the main parties are as ready as they can be for an election at any time. There may still be some candidates yet to be chosen but these will be primarily be paper candidates in unwinnable seats. In East Ham, Reform has chosen its candidate and it is widely expected Stephen Timms will run again but no other party has yet chosen a candidate but if they had to they probably could very quickly.
Rishi Sunak isn't stupid and he can clearly see which way the wind is blowing and like Micawber can wait for something to turn up but he also probably realises he has to dance a victory dance even if defeat beckons. The worst message you can give your supporters is to look defeatist so Sunak will go on believing publicly in the possibility of victory even though he will know it's over.
The bigger problem is persuading people to vote for him in spite of being a Conservative as against voting Conservative in spite of him.
Little Rishi is simply trying to close off the trap that Brown fell into, while keeping all his options open.
I totally agree with you and TSE header. If Rishi gives impression it’s May and it doesn’t happen, the bottled it narrative will shred him. However if he aims for May behind the scenes, and calls the election end of March shortly after budget, no hit at all.
I would also add it’s not Rishi or team suggesting May, it’s commentators suggesting it based on how quickly tranche one of tax cuts will hit pockets, timing of budget, and how a lot of journalists feel May makes more sense. January’s tax cut is distant memory come November.
Feels like the attacks on Starmer have really gone up a gear this week, too.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
I would guess 1946-47. There was heavy rain and snow followed by serious spring flooding.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
"No significant difference in intelligence quotient was seen in 1192 children delivered by forceps (114 midforceps) compared with 1499 who were delivered spontaneously."
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
I would guess 1946-47. There was heavy rain and snow followed by serious spring flooding.
Autumn 2000 was very wet - I remember getting drenched at Fontwell and having an entertaining drive home with multiple diversions and eventually getting into Outer London at Tadworth.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
Just think how much better it would be over there in Finland where they recorded -40 degrees (F or C, take your pick) yesterday
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
For all those who are wondering, the island in question is the Isle of Wight
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I can't remember as wet a winter in my lifetime.
Today I have fulfilled a long-held wish and seen a murmuration of starlings. I hadn't even gone looking for one. We spent the last day of (my) Christmas break in Blackpool; first the zoo, then the illuminations, which, via a slightly circuitous route, we got to about sunset. Driving past the North Pier: "look at that! Is that a murmuration?" Then a hasty three point turn on the front outside the tower and a hurried hunt inland for a parking spot - not disastrously difficult on a Thursday in early January, even with the illuminations on - and a run back to the North Pier. It was magnificent. Easily tens of thousands of birds arriving in wave after wave after wave, swooping and banking in huge, changing, mysterious shapes around the pier, with a blood red sky behind them. Apparently this is quite common at sunset at the North Pier in winter. But Blackpool makes almost nothing of this, and the people watching, while entranced, weren't there expecting to see it. (I've actually since seen a clip from Leighton Moss in Lancashire today of an even better murmuration. But that takes nothing from the thrill I'm feeling of seeing my first one.) Blackpool, by the way, was as joyous as ever, and I walked the comedy carpet grinning like a loon. Drove up and down the front enjoying the slightly idiosyncratic lights, fish and chips in Bispham, then home.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
"No significant difference in intelligence quotient was seen in 1192 children delivered by forceps (114 midforceps) compared with 1499 who were delivered spontaneously."
I was delivered by forceps, and when I told my therapist about it she pretty much said it explained everything! I read up about it a bit and it seems there are issues
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
For all those who are wondering, the island in question is the Isle of Wight
Did you not hear Anneka Rice extolling its virtue just this afternoon on Radio 4?
Jane Austen’s characters, Maria and Julia of ‘Mansfield Park’, mock their cousin Fanny for her lack of geographical knowledge proclaiming: “She thinks of nothing but the Isle of Wight, and she calls it the Island, as if there were no other island in the world”.
It remains minus 20 here in Finland. Many people buy electricity at the market prices. At the moment the price is around 2.5 euros per KWH in peak times due to the demand because of the cold weather... so around 100 euros per day to heat a house.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
Too much fresh water in Freshwater? And a big lake in Lake?
On topic - do those tweets really rule out a Spring election? Its obvious that while Mr Sunak retains the right to call the GE he is desperate to try to keep his options open. At the moment he is boxed out for January 2025 and about to be forced to give up on Spring 2024. That leaves his area of potential choice dwindling rapidly.
I suspect Spring 2024 may have turned out to be his best chance and he is being nicely manouvered out of the option.
No, they don't rule it out.
However, polls like the WeThink today giving Labour a 17-point lead aren't exactly going to entice him.
Isn’t there a calculation, what makes the polls look better in q3 q4?
If you start 15 point behind in May, if you start 15 points behind in Oct/Nov, is there better chance of closing that gap during spring election with tax cuts fresh in pockets, not stale in pockets?
The bigger poll leads might actually have put the writing on the wall more conclusively, the psychology of not even a chance of staying power, not a winnable election, so like with John Major the goodbye speech is already written - so many have already decided their post government/politics future, is there really enough reason in their minds to hang around prolonging the pain for themselves. I know some say who would give up the opportunity of another six months as big cheese. Because it would be horrible, humiliating and pointless, just puts what you do next on hold, that’s why.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
"No significant difference in intelligence quotient was seen in 1192 children delivered by forceps (114 midforceps) compared with 1499 who were delivered spontaneously."
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
It remains minus 20 here in Finland. Many people buy electricity at the market prices. At the moment the price is around 2.5 euros per KWH in peak times due to the demand because of the cold weather... so around 100 euros per day to heat a house.
Wow. Whereabouts in Finland are you? Have you done the trick of throwing boiling water in the air and watching it turn to snow?
It remains minus 20 here in Finland. Many people buy electricity at the market prices. At the moment the price is around 2.5 euros per KWH in peak times due to the demand because of the cold weather... so around 100 euros per day to heat a house.
Wow. Whereabouts in Finland are you? Have you done the trick of throwing boiling water in the air and watching it turn to snow?
Don't do it. If you time it wrong and the wind is wrong, you can scald yourself.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
For all those who are wondering, the island in question is the Isle of Wight
Has it ever been seen in the same room as the Isle of Man?
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
"Jeffrey Epstein offered money to disprove Stephen Hawking ‘orgy’ allegation Virginia Giuffre claimed the physicist participated in an ‘underage orgy’"
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
Just think how much better it would be over there in Finland where they recorded -40 degrees (F or C, take your pick) yesterday
At least at -40 the snow piles up where it lands. When it rains in Wales these days it floods Shrewsbury two days later and Worcester two days after that. In earlier years it would have fallen as snow and seeped out more slowly. Which is not to say floods never happened, but this is one of the reasons why they're more frequent now.
Today I have fulfilled a long-held wish and seen a murmuration of starlings. I hadn't even gone looking for one. We spent the last day of (my) Christmas break in Blackpool; first the zoo, then the illuminations, which, via a slightly circuitous route, we got to about sunset. Driving past the North Pier: "look at that! Is that a murmuration?" Then a hasty three point turn on the front outside the tower and a hurried hunt inland for a parking spot - not disastrously difficult on a Thursday in early January, even with the illuminations on - and a run back to the North Pier. It was magnificent. Easily tens of thousands of birds arriving in wave after wave after wave, swooping and banking in huge, changing, mysterious shapes around the pier, with a blood red sky behind them. Apparently this is quite common at sunset at the North Pier in winter. But Blackpool makes almost nothing of this, and the people watching, while entranced, weren't there expecting to see it. (I've actually since seen a clip from Leighton Moss in Lancashire today of an even better murmuration. But that takes nothing from the thrill I'm feeling of seeing my first one.) Blackpool, by the way, was as joyous as ever, and I walked the comedy carpet grinning like a loon. Drove up and down the front enjoying the slightly idiosyncratic lights, fish and chips in Bispham, then home.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I can't remember as wet a winter in my lifetime.
November 1940 was extraordinarily wet, I believe?
Yes. Following on from 1939-40 which was one of the coldest winters ever, -23.3C recorded in Rhayader in December 1939.
But news of both was suppressed as it was feared if people knew how the bad weather was damaging the war effort, they might lose heart.
That didn't apply by 1947. So people knew exactly what to blame for the introduction of bread rationing.
Fun fact - Britain didn't have bread rationing during the war. Only afterwards due to a triple harvest failure from 1945 to 1947. Would have been worse but for the efforts of the Americans, managed by former President Hoover, to provide food. And in the Soviet Union, where his help was refused, it was *much* worse.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
For all those who are wondering, the island in question is the Isle of Wight
Has it ever been seen in the same room as the Isle of Man?
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
That reminds me. There was a programme about 1947's snow I meant to catch up on.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
It was interesting (not in a good way) to read in the link @DougSeal put up earlier how during the action brought by the subpostmasters the PO would misuse discovery rules as a tool to try and delay the trial and drain the coffers of the plaintiffs. Release small numbers of documents, claim they didn't have more, then suddenly release them at the last minute to delay things.
Which are exactly the tactics they are using now to obfuscate the enquiry as you have highlighted on numerous occasions.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
. . . as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise! Surprise!" . . .
AP (via Seattle Times) - Rivals ramping up attacks on Haley as Iowa’s caucuses near
Nikki Haley’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination are ratcheting up their attacks on her as Iowa’s first-in-the-nation voting draws closer.
The barbed news releases, attack ads and amped up back-and-forth come as the former South Carolina governor and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis battle for a distant second place to former President Donald Trump with less than two weeks until Iowa’s leadoff caucuses.
For months, Trump has trained his focus on DeSantis, who has long argued that he’s the party’s best chance at unseating Trump from atop the field. But in recent weeks, Trump’s campaign has increasingly shifted its target to Haley, calling her a “sellout” and criticizing her stances on taxes and the U.S.-Mexico border.
Her campaign on Thursday said Trump’s attention to Haley, who served as his United Nations ambassador, reflects his concern that she is gaining on him.
DeSantis, who is preparing to face off against Haley next week in their first one-on-one debate, jumped on Haley, too, for telling a roomful of likely voters Wednesday night in New Hampshire — the first-in-the-nation GOP primary state — that they would have the opportunity to “correct” the decision made by Iowa caucusgoers. The comment could signal that she not only doesn’t expect to win Iowa but that she doesn’t expect to place second to DeSantis. . . .
DeSantis has also been critical of Haley’s omission last week of slavery when a voter asked her about the causes of the Civil War — a response she walked back 12 hours later.
“You know, I noticed that Nikki Haley has had some problems with some basic American history,” DeSantis said last week in Iowa. . . .
SSI - Gota love RDS of all people, lecturing ANYONE about "basic American history" ESPECIALLY the Civil War.
Seeing as how one of the main planks of HIS own state government "education" curriculum, is teaching young Floridians that slavery was the best thing for Black folk since the Curse of Ham.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
For all those who are wondering, the island in question is the Isle of Wight
Has it ever been seen in the same room as the Isle of Man?
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
"Rwanda is a safe country". Government of the day always finds things convenient.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
Because between 1997-1999 the Law Commission, and subsequently the government, were fixated on stopping people getting off speeding charges by insisting the Police prove the reliability of their equipment, and the idea that they were opening the door to the danger of assuming ever-advancing technology was always accurate unless you could prove otherwise, never occurred to them.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
It was interesting (not in a good way) to read in the link @DougSeal put up earlier how during the action brought by the subpostmasters the PO would misuse discovery rules as a tool to try and delay the trial and drain the coffers of the plaintiffs. Release small numbers of documents, claim they didn't have more, then suddenly release them at the last minute to delay things.
Which are exactly the tactics they are using now to obfuscate the enquiry as you have highlighted on numerous occasions.
Kemi Badenoch could have played an important role here, but facing a real challenge, she seems to have been close to useless. Same as with the EU Revocation bill.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
They have already faced severe penalties - they've been awarded fresh UK Government contracts of 10s of millions, not 10s of billions. If that isn't suffering, what is?
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
It's because whatever you do there is a problem, and some rational accounts of how it should be would render court cases impossible. Suppose you had to prove on every occasion by technical expertise applied to each individual transaction that a thousand emails received in fact accurately reflected what the sender sent, or indeed that anyone had sent them at all.
So much of life hangs upon complex technology that the law is bound to cut the knot in rough and ready ways. Which is not to defend the PO of course, who should have, by themselves and by proper old fashioned auditing worked out that something was amiss.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
If we only gave them a tax rebate for having pretentious "traditional" children's names too. DUP Tory landslide.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
Have you been to NI? There are around 57 people who are "high earning and upper middle class" by south east shire standards.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
That reminds me. There was a programme about 1947's snow I meant to catch up on.
It was Channel 5, so 10 minutes of interesting content padded out to an hour. Enough to convey what an extreme winter it was though.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
It's because whatever you do there is a problem, and some rational accounts of how it should be would render court cases impossible. Suppose you had to prove on every occasion by technical expertise applied to each individual transaction that a thousand emails received in fact accurately reflected what the sender sent, or indeed that anyone had sent them at all.
So much of life hangs upon complex technology that the law is bound to cut the knot in rough and ready ways. Which is not to defend the PO of course, who should have, by themselves and by proper old fashioned auditing worked out that something was amiss.
But also, TLDR, because both lawyers and politicians hammer the nail in front of them, and don't spend enough time thinking about what might come later.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
That reminds me. There was a programme about 1947's snow I meant to catch up on.
It was Channel 5, so 10 minutes of interesting content padded out to an hour. Enough to convey what an extreme winter it was though.
Basic YouTube default, it seems. Way less effort for more ads/clicks.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
They have already faced severe penalties - they've been awarded fresh UK Government contracts of 10s of millions, not 10s of billions. If that isn't suffering, what is?
Correct. As recently as 6 weeks ago Fujitsu got an extension to run Horizon as well as a number of other contracts.
That's not really news. The SPMs were taking the government to court; any junior minister would be told not to meet them in those circumstances.
Not at the time of that letter they weren't. The litigation started in 2015. Not in 2010. And the letter does not anyway make that point. It says that the Post Office was not run by the government - it was managed at arm's length. It is a curious argument to make because if so - to who, was it responsible if not to its shareholder? Why would there be any need for a Postal Minister at all?
It also misses the point that the concerns the SPMs were raising were in effect whistleblowing concerns which should have been looked at.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
They have already faced severe penalties - they've been awarded fresh UK Government contracts of 10s of millions, not 10s of billions. If that isn't suffering, what is?
Correct. As recently as 6 weeks ago Fujitsu got an extension to run Horizon as well as a number of other contracts.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Where did this "computers don't make mistakes" idea come from? Anyone who's ever done any programming knows it's almost impossible to eliminate errors and bugs.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Fujitsu is the cover name for ICL, part of Britain's glorious history in computery
More accurately, ICL was going down the pan at the time, and Fujitsu took them over. And bought itself a shedload of grief as a consequence.
Could that be a way out for the PO too? Persuade P&O to purchase the label (selling point - it comes with a royal warrant)
Was it Royal Mail who spent a fortune on brand consultants to come up with a new name and end up with Consignia? (Which they soon threw in the bin-ia.)
That's not really news. The SPMs were taking the government to court; any junior minister would be told not to meet them in those circumstances.
Not at the time of that letter they weren't. The litigation started in 2015. Not in 2010. And the letter does not anyway make that point. It says that the Post Office was not run by the government - it was managed at arm's length. It is a curious argument to make because if so - to who, was it responsible if not to its shareholder? Why would there be any need for a Postal Minister at all?
It also misses the point that the concerns the SPMs were raising were in effect whistleblowing concerns which should have been looked at.
We forget Postcomm, now, but it was still the statutory regulator for both Royal Mail and PO Counters back in 2010. The idea being that government ministers could keep their distance.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
That reminds me. There was a programme about 1947's snow I meant to catch up on.
It was Channel 5, so 10 minutes of interesting content padded out to an hour. Enough to convey what an extreme winter it was though.
I didn't see the program, but my dad has a story about that winter. His family were living on a farm near Leek, and they were utterly snowed in. They were safe and warm (it was a farmhouse, after all...) but after a few days he felt the need to get the milk churns down into Leek. He loaded them onto a trailer, connected up a tractor and headed off. After a short distance the road went into a little valley; he turned back as he could see the telegraph posts at the side of the road descend into the snow as the road dropped, until they were totally covered with windblown snow. It must have been thirty foot or so of snow...
If the telegraph posts are covered in snow, there's little point in going on...
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
A further technology change enabling Ebay etc means that students can do away with the middleman and his mark down if they are prepared to do the work of selling.
The same technology change also means that in many towns the best actual bookshop to find something worth reading is a charity shop. Huge numbers of people, rather than either do Ebay etc or take the low prices in the trade, simply write books off as a charitable donation and give them to the infinity of charity shops free. It is a fascinating social change.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
One of the first computer programs I ever wrote was to settle a family argument about what to name our house (it was an urban semi - I think my parents just had 'ideas'). The first iteration I just had it tally up random points then print out the result. Done!
To much disappointment to all assembled around the huge radiation-bursting faux-wood encased TV the computer was attached to.
So I did a second version which printed bar charts that went up and down, flickered, jumped and danced, oh the anticipation! And then printed out the same result.
Which this time round was greeted with hurrahs and job-well-done.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
They have already faced severe penalties - they've been awarded fresh UK Government contracts of 10s of millions, not 10s of billions. If that isn't suffering, what is?
Correct. As recently as 6 weeks ago Fujitsu got an extension to run Horizon as well as a number of other contracts.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
One of the first computer programs I ever wrote was to settle a family argument about what to name our house (it was an urban semi - I think my parents just had 'ideas'). The first iteration I just had it tally up random points then print out the result. Done!
To much disappointment to all assembled around the huge radiation-bursting faux-wood encased TV the computer was attached to.
So I did a second version which printed bar charts that went up and down, flickered, jumped and danced, oh the anticipation! And then printed out the same result.
Which this time round was greeted with hurrahs and job-well-done.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
Because between 1997-1999 the Law Commission, and subsequently the government, were fixated on stopping people getting off speeding charges by insisting the Police prove the reliability of their equipment, and the idea that they were opening the door to the danger of assuming ever-advancing technology was always accurate unless you could prove otherwise, never occurred to them.
Actually the IT experts the Law Commission consulted did warn them of the issues.The Law Commission ignored them and misrepresented what they said in their report making the recommendation which has proved so disastrous.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Problem is the main Fujitsu witness, Gareth Jenkins, hasn't given evidence yet.
every time he is due to appear, the PO release some more documents which impat on his evidence, so his appearance has to be postponed.
It's a deliberate delaying tactic, probably because his evidence is likely to be damning.
Hasn't Jenkins also tried several times to get the evidence he will give exempted from use to prosecute him subsequently, which has been denied? But delays while this was decided.
From the evidence in Wallis's book it looks pretty likely that Jenkins pitched up in court to swear to whatever the PO wanted him to say, whilst knowing all along that Horizon was a crock of s***e.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
One of the first computer programs I ever wrote was to settle a family argument about what to name our house (it was an urban semi - I think my parents just had 'ideas'). The first iteration I just had it tally up random points then print out the result. Done!
To much disappointment to all assembled around the huge radiation-bursting faux-wood encased TV the computer was attached to.
So I did a second version which printed bar charts that went up and down, flickered, jumped and danced, oh the anticipation! And then printed out the same result.
Which this time round was greeted with hurrahs and job-well-done.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
Have you been to NI? There are around 57 people who are "high earning and upper middle class" by south east shire standards.
Average fees in top private Royal School Armagh are £4k for day and £14k for boarding a year.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I struggle to understand how this change could ever have been allowed to go through. Probably because it was convenient.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Where did this "computers don't make mistakes" idea come from? Anyone who's ever done any programming knows it's almost impossible to eliminate errors and bugs.
Because when computers first started becoming a thing, say from 1940s thru (at least) 1990s, one of their major selling points (as in quasi-reasoned discourse and impure PR) was their fantastic ACCURACY - far beyond the puny powers of even Einstein's brain, let alone Fred in Payroll and/or Marge in Accounting.
As for "anyone who's ever done any programming" those folks were pretty thin on the ground in those ancient times. And perhaps NOT as common today as your might be thinking?
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Worth a timely reminder at this point that Fujitsu are also a major supplier of IT systems to the MoD including providing continuous technical support. I hope those systems work better than the PO software.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
The same technology change also means that in many towns the best actual bookshop to find something worth reading is a charity shop. Huge numbers of people, rather than either do Ebay etc or take the low prices in the trade, simply write books off as a charitable donation and give them to the infinity of charity shops free. It is a fascinating social change.
Discussed here previously. There are so many copies of The Da Vinci Code offered to charity shops some have stopped taking them. An artist acquired several hundred copies, pulped them, and had them reprinted as 1984
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
One of the first computer programs I ever wrote was to settle a family argument about what to name our house (it was an urban semi - I think my parents just had 'ideas'). The first iteration I just had it tally up random points then print out the result. Done!
To much disappointment to all assembled around the huge radiation-bursting faux-wood encased TV the computer was attached to.
So I did a second version which printed bar charts that went up and down, flickered, jumped and danced, oh the anticipation! And then printed out the same result.
Which this time round was greeted with hurrahs and job-well-done.
I learned a valuable lesson that day!
When I was punching titles and ISBN numbers into the book-buying PC, the trick was to show the computer screen to the customer.
Don't have to take my word for it - see for yourself!
Not exactly "Mad Men" but close enough for my boss.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Lol.
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
In very late 1980s, yours truly briefly worked for a company that managed college bookstores AND bought used textbooks from students, to resell to other students. The latter being the biggest part of the business by far.
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
One of the first computer programs I ever wrote was to settle a family argument about what to name our house (it was an urban semi - I think my parents just had 'ideas'). The first iteration I just had it tally up random points then print out the result. Done!
To much disappointment to all assembled around the huge radiation-bursting faux-wood encased TV the computer was attached to.
So I did a second version which printed bar charts that went up and down, flickered, jumped and danced, oh the anticipation! And then printed out the same result.
Which this time round was greeted with hurrahs and job-well-done.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Lincolnshire - which has Grammar schools - is the third poorest county in the UK by GRP per capita. Even Kent and Essex which also have some Grammar schools are in the bottom half of counties ranked by GRP per capita.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Where did this "computers don't make mistakes" idea come from? Anyone who's ever done any programming knows it's almost impossible to eliminate errors and bugs.
Because when computers first started becoming a thing, say from 1940s thru (at least) 1990s, one of their major selling points (as in quasi-reasoned discourse and impure PR) was their fantastic ACCURACY - far beyond the puny powers of even Einstein's brain, let alone Fred in Payroll and/or Marge in Accounting.
As for "anyone who's ever done any programming" those folks were pretty thin on the ground in those ancient times. And perhaps NOT as common today as your might be thinking?
There are some people around gullible enough to believe things written by ChatGPT...
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Problem is the main Fujitsu witness, Gareth Jenkins, hasn't given evidence yet.
every time he is due to appear, the PO release some more documents which impat on his evidence, so his appearance has to be postponed.
It's a deliberate delaying tactic, probably because his evidence is likely to be damning.
Hasn't Jenkins also tried several times to get the evidence he will give exempted from use to prosecute him subsequently, which has been denied? But delays while this was decided.
From the evidence in Wallis's book it looks pretty likely that Jenkins pitched up in court to swear to whatever the PO wanted him to say, whilst knowing all along that Horizon was a crock of s***e.
I take it you watched Duncan Atkinson giving evidence on the role of the Expert Witness? He was devastating.
It is clear Jenkins was being used as a stooge. I think he will confirm that when he eventually gets to appear.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
A couple of years ago, the junior justice Minister, Alex Chalk, did commission a report on how to deal with computer evidence and got IT expertise into it. But since then the government has confirmed that it is not proposing to look at this area of law again. (I explain the reasons they give for this in my header.)
The judge could recommend this but I don't think it comes within the scope of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.
Of course this should be looked at again. It has been a disastrous law change.
Because when computers first started becoming a thing, say from 1940s thru (at least) 1990s, one of their major selling points (as in quasi-reasoned discourse and impure PR) was their fantastic ACCURACY
It's certainly true that computers can give you exactly wrong answers to any level of precision you desire
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Problem is the main Fujitsu witness, Gareth Jenkins, hasn't given evidence yet.
every time he is due to appear, the PO release some more documents which impat on his evidence, so his appearance has to be postponed.
It's a deliberate delaying tactic, probably because his evidence is likely to be damning.
Hasn't Jenkins also tried several times to get the evidence he will give exempted from use to prosecute him subsequently, which has been denied? But delays while this was decided.
From the evidence in Wallis's book it looks pretty likely that Jenkins pitched up in court to swear to whatever the PO wanted him to say, whilst knowing all along that Horizon was a crock of s***e.
I take it you watched Duncan Atkinson giving evidence on the role of the Expert Witness? He was devastating.
It is clear Jenkins was being used as a stooge. I think he will confirm that when he eventually gets to appear.
Believe technical term within legal profession (at least in US) is "mouthpiece".
Is not a lawyer "being used as a stooge" and/or mouthpiece, grounds for disbarment (or whatyoucallit) in UK?
Comments
In NI I would imagine most private school parents vote UUP or Alliance given the tiny Conservative voteshare where they stand in NI
One of my favourite Tom Scott videos, from 2020.
"The Greatest Title Sequence I've Ever Seen"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUF4afxMpQk
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
I hadn't even gone looking for one. We spent the last day of (my) Christmas break in Blackpool; first the zoo, then the illuminations, which, via a slightly circuitous route, we got to about sunset. Driving past the North Pier: "look at that! Is that a murmuration?" Then a hasty three point turn on the front outside the tower and a hurried hunt inland for a parking spot - not disastrously difficult on a Thursday in early January, even with the illuminations on - and a run back to the North Pier.
It was magnificent. Easily tens of thousands of birds arriving in wave after wave after wave, swooping and banking in huge, changing, mysterious shapes around the pier, with a blood red sky behind them.
Apparently this is quite common at sunset at the North Pier in winter. But Blackpool makes almost nothing of this, and the people watching, while entranced, weren't there expecting to see it.
(I've actually since seen a clip from Leighton Moss in Lancashire today of an even better murmuration. But that takes nothing from the thrill I'm feeling of seeing my first one.)
Blackpool, by the way, was as joyous as ever, and I walked the comedy carpet grinning like a loon. Drove up and down the front enjoying the slightly idiosyncratic lights, fish and chips in Bispham, then home.
Jane Austen’s characters, Maria and Julia of ‘Mansfield Park’, mock their cousin Fanny for her lack of geographical knowledge proclaiming: “She thinks of nothing but the Isle of Wight, and she calls it the Island, as if there were no other island in the world”.
If you start 15 point behind in May, if you start 15 points behind in Oct/Nov, is there better chance of closing that gap during spring election with tax cuts fresh in pockets, not stale in pockets?
The bigger poll leads might actually have put the writing on the wall more conclusively, the psychology of not even a chance of staying power, not a winnable election, so like with John Major the goodbye speech is already written - so many have already decided their post government/politics future, is there really enough reason in their minds to hang around prolonging the pain for themselves. I know some say who would give up the opportunity of another six months as big cheese. Because it would be horrible, humiliating and pointless, just puts what you do next on hold, that’s why.
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it.
2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment.
3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients).
4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively.
5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics.
6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points.
7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office.
8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking?
9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes.
10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest.
11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
Whereabouts in Finland are you?
Have you done the trick of throwing boiling water in the air and watching it turn to snow?
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
Virginia Giuffre claimed the physicist participated in an ‘underage orgy’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/04/jeffrey-epstein-stephen-hawking-court-files-claims/
Sir Keir Starmer has no principles
https://x.com/timmyvoe240886/status/1742617554919579734?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
But news of both was suppressed as it was feared if people knew how the bad weather was damaging the war effort, they might lose heart.
That didn't apply by 1947. So people knew exactly what to blame for the introduction of bread rationing.
Fun fact - Britain didn't have bread rationing during the war. Only afterwards due to a triple harvest failure from 1945 to 1947. Would have been worse but for the efforts of the Americans, managed by former President Hoover, to provide food. And in the Soviet Union, where his help was refused, it was *much* worse.
Don't tell the BLM campaigners.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/12/nick-brown-resigns-labour-complete-farce-disciplinary-process
Which are exactly the tactics they are using now to obfuscate the enquiry as you have highlighted on numerous occasions.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Rivals ramping up attacks on Haley as Iowa’s caucuses near
Nikki Haley’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination are ratcheting up their attacks on her as Iowa’s first-in-the-nation voting draws closer.
The barbed news releases, attack ads and amped up back-and-forth come as the former South Carolina governor and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis battle for a distant second place to former President Donald Trump with less than two weeks until Iowa’s leadoff caucuses.
For months, Trump has trained his focus on DeSantis, who has long argued that he’s the party’s best chance at unseating Trump from atop the field. But in recent weeks, Trump’s campaign has increasingly shifted its target to Haley, calling her a “sellout” and criticizing her stances on taxes and the U.S.-Mexico border.
Her campaign on Thursday said Trump’s attention to Haley, who served as his United Nations ambassador, reflects his concern that she is gaining on him.
DeSantis, who is preparing to face off against Haley next week in their first one-on-one debate, jumped on Haley, too, for telling a roomful of likely voters Wednesday night in New Hampshire — the first-in-the-nation GOP primary state — that they would have the opportunity to “correct” the decision made by Iowa caucusgoers. The comment could signal that she not only doesn’t expect to win Iowa but that she doesn’t expect to place second to DeSantis. . . .
DeSantis has also been critical of Haley’s omission last week of slavery when a voter asked her about the causes of the Civil War — a response she walked back 12 hours later.
“You know, I noticed that Nikki Haley has had some problems with some basic American history,” DeSantis said last week in Iowa. . . .
SSI - Gota love RDS of all people, lecturing ANYONE about "basic American history" ESPECIALLY the Civil War.
Seeing as how one of the main planks of HIS own state government "education" curriculum, is teaching young Floridians that slavery was the best thing for Black folk since the Curse of Ham.
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
https://x.com/bbcmotd/status/1742929515771547917?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/bethnalsue/status/1742706051437216147?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
We forget, nowadays, how much technology was seen as the solution to all of humanity's problems back in the late 1990s.
For those that weren't there at the time, call up a graph of technology share prices during that time. Or Google 'lastminute.com'.
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Especially, the fund management charges...
The dregs were bought by HP
So much of life hangs upon complex technology that the law is bound to cut the knot in rough and ready ways. Which is not to defend the PO of course, who should have, by themselves and by proper old fashioned auditing worked out that something was amiss.
As for the need to change this I dealt with this too, the following day in this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/11/30/what-did-parliament-do/.
You can find more detailed versions of both these on my website here - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/category/woman-with-opinions/investigations/
At that time, typical method of used-text-book buying, was for a buyer to look over a stack of books presented by some kid, and do some quick mental arithmetic, based on the standard "buy" prices for the most common texts, plus quickie guess-timation re: other, less common books. Then make the kid an offer, take it or leave it - next!
About 99.46% of the time, students were convinced they were being ripped off. Which was only true in about 96.49% of cases.
THEN the company came up with a new system - looking up prices on a computer, based (on titles or ISBN numbers) of books.
Which took a bit longer . . . but result was same, as the "buy" prices in the Great Brain were indentical to what the buyers using mental arithmetic were offering.
HOWEVER, the response of the students was VERY different.
Because when some guy reeled off some numbers off the top of his head = must be ripoff.
BUT when a computer spouted out the EXACT SAME numbers = must be legit.
At least that was reaction way back then.
Addendum - also SOP for the "History" Channel.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366560655/Controversial-Fujitsu-contract-with-Post-Office-extended-again
It also misses the point that the concerns the SPMs were raising were in effect whistleblowing concerns which should have been looked at.
"Nicola Sturgeon warns flagship care plan may not be meeting goals
Nicola Sturgeon has admitted her flagship plan to help children in care in Scotland is at risk of failing to deliver effective change.
The ex-first minister told a BBC podcast that "vested interests" were pushing back against her reforms.
The scheme launched during her time in office, known as The Promise, was designed to improve the lives of care-experienced children and young people.
But she has raised concerns the programme is not meeting its aims.
Ms Sturgeon, now a backbench MSP, vowed to hold the Scottish government to account to ensure the plan is delivered properly."
... Not exactly a rallying cry of endorsement for Humza. Though he still hasn't been arrested, on the plus side.
If the telegraph posts are covered in snow, there's little point in going on...
It's a deliberate delaying tactic, probably because his evidence is likely to be damning.
The same technology change also means that in many towns the best actual bookshop to find something worth reading is a charity shop. Huge numbers of people, rather than either do Ebay etc or take the low prices in the trade, simply write books off as a charitable donation and give them to the infinity of charity shops free. It is a fascinating social change.
To much disappointment to all assembled around the huge radiation-bursting faux-wood encased TV the computer was attached to.
So I did a second version which printed bar charts that went up and down, flickered, jumped and danced, oh the anticipation! And then printed out the same result.
Which this time round was greeted with hurrahs and job-well-done.
I learned a valuable lesson that day!
From the evidence in Wallis's book it looks pretty likely that Jenkins pitched up in court to swear to whatever the PO wanted him to say, whilst knowing all along that Horizon was a crock of s***e.
Also a fraction of average Eton fees, of £48k a year (all boarding) or average London day school fees of £18k a year
https://royalschool.com/admissions/fees-bursaries/
https://www.etoncollege.com/admissions/fees/
https://simplylondonrelocation.com/knowledge-base/private-school-cost-in-london/
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/11/30/what-did-parliament-do/
As for "anyone who's ever done any programming" those folks were pretty thin on the ground in those ancient times. And perhaps NOT as common today as your might be thinking?
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Don't have to take my word for it - see for yourself!
Not exactly "Mad Men" but close enough for my boss.
It is clear Jenkins was being used as a stooge. I think he will confirm that when he eventually gets to appear.
Is Nicola Sturgeon now being "advised" by Hillary Clinton?
MY advice to all four is - SHUT THE FECK UP!!!
The judge could recommend this but I don't think it comes within the scope of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.
Of course this should be looked at again. It has been a disastrous law change.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
Is not a lawyer "being used as a stooge" and/or mouthpiece, grounds for disbarment (or whatyoucallit) in UK?