Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.
Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them
There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains
I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too
It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause
Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked
Yes, but the story was always there. The original Computer Weekly article - which they held off publishing for a year for fear of the consequences - contained six case studies of individuals who had, at that stage, suffered hugely, including bankruptcy and prison. The interesting question is why a campaign group and a website and a radio series and magazine coverage and a book and a parliamentary hearing all failed to attract the scale of public attention that this clearly deserved. Usually we rely on the Guardian to champion such stuff, but even they don't appear to have twigged.
Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".
That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.
Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.
There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.
Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..
Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.
How many questions has Starmer asked about it at PMQs?
Not enough.
PMQs doesn't work to hold the government to account, nor does it get to any answers. All that would zing back across the chamber is some pre-prepared barb about how it was all New Labour's fault in the first place.
Absolutely. People sometimes just totally misunderstand how PMQs has works.
Sunak is probably the apogee of not bothering in any way to answer questions (and actually Truss, in her very short time, was a rare case of making at least some attempt to do so). But it's never been a forum for forensic questioning on worthy, long term issues, as there is zero chance of a meaningful answer emerging in front of 600 baying MPs. It's traded zingers on the issue of the day to try to get the soundbite or just maybe elicit a gaffe, and a taking of the temperature on whether the PM and LOTO have their troops enthused.
There is also a romantic view that it used to be much more serious. It wasn't, and never will be - it's pantomime.
New Upper 10,000 refers to the old observation that countries were run by the aristocracies and their moderately distant relations.
The NU10K is a bit more diverse, but have adopted the sense of entitlement, arrogance, immunity from consequences* and general fuckwittery associated with the Old Upper 10,000.
A lot of John Wilkes journalism was about the OU10K
*An important part of the No Consequences thing is ensuring that No Consequences occur for other NU10Kers.
Note the importance of no consequences for other NU10k club members. You scratch their back, they’ll scratch yours if that time ever comes.
Who is in the NU10k club? All sorts of people. But generally, if you can leave your current job & expect to be parachuted into a nice sinecure as the Director of a non-profit org then you’re probably in the club. Note that the club is apolitical - party affiliation is not in and of itself relevant to whether you’re in the club or not. Some MPs are in the club whilst others are not, probably because they committed the cardinal sin of criticising club members at some point.
There’s probably a universal truth of human relations that an inchoate organisation like this forms in any country - with ill defined boundaries, no membership lists & no written rules. Somehow the members all know the rules even if they’re never quite sure whether they’re in the club or not.
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Davey shunted Layla Moran off to become spokesperson for Foreign Affairs. Shadow Foreign is a non-job even for the Official Opposition; for the LibDems it's invisible. It's a real shame because she was good, and very visible, as Education spokesperson. But clearly this was deliberate.
Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
If Sunak doesn’t dole out huge comedy cheques with generous compensation for those affected live on tv just before the GE, he doesn’t deserve to be PM
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
The ITV drama had to use just about exactly her own words gathered from transcripts and interviews because the threat of legal action was too high. It is a testament to Lia Williams' portrayal that you should have come out with that view of her.
Actually I thought they gave the two women a teensy bit of sympathy - Vennells looking mortified in church, and van den Boegard (sp) quietly sobbing at her desk.
In other news, Reform UK have selected someone certifiably bonkers for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency:
"Augustine Chukwuma Obodo Snr is the UK leader of Friends Of Trump UK & Commonwealth Affairs for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He serves as an Advisory Board Member of Donald Trump for President, Inc, representing the Commonwealth Black Voices for President Donald J. Trump. Augustine founded the conservative advocacy group, Friends of Trump UK and Commonwealth Affairs, and has been its Group Chief Executive Officer since 2015."
Strikes me that regardless of whether Davey was at fault in his actions over the Post Office, it's bad enough that this is a reminder to people about the Coalition, which is something the Lib Dems have never properly recovered from.
It's also a reminder about New Labour, who the mess started under.
No organisation comes out of this looking good. Politically, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are all sullied by it, to one extent or another.
Point of order. It started under the Major Government (the fiasco, not the prosecutions). That said the Conservatives come out of this with relatively clean hands.
Did it? I thought the system came in after 1999? Might well be wrong, but I remember first reading/talking with colleagues about the problems in about 2004 or 5. The first prosecutions were well into New Labour's time ISTR.
The Horizon system was piloted in 1995 and the same problems were already apparent during the pilot. The full introduction started 1999.
Yes, but the issues with prosecutions came well into New Labour's time. It seems a little odd to try to pin this debacle on Major's government.
Despite Ms C majoring on the role of politicians, I think they are well down the list of potential cuplrits, certainly as far as the original problem is concerned. An industry IT system that is generating accounting errors really is something that a large company - especially one as exposed to scutiny as was the PO (being subject to public and media interest, a statutory regulator, a customer pressure group, and several powerful and active trade unions) - should have been able to sort out itself.
As the size and scale and knowledge of the developing scandal grew, the political world becomes more and more culpable, since while we do not rely on our ministers to find out whether a company's IT system is working, we do expect politicians to campaign against injustice on behalf of their constituents. The government's silence and inactivity over more recent years and its showering the PO CEO with honour and lining her up with a job inside 10 Downing Street, after all the key points of the story were known, is by far the bigger misjudgement.
Fujitsu fucked up. Then lied about it The Post Ofice fucked up. Then lied about it. The Civil Service tried to ignore it. Then briefed politicians there was nothing to see here The politicians were incredibly incurious
Yes, but beware of hindsight. Twenty years ago there was a little bit of ice floating about on the sea. Nobody saw the huge iceberg beneath - not even Bates, to begin with. Both Futisu and the Post Office, back then, would have known they had problems but both imagined they were dealing with rare, isolated instances.
The PO should have known, first, because of the growing number of legal cases it was dealing with. Why this never set off any alarm bells is a key question for the inquiry. The "this is how shit happens" story/joke posted this morning, about how messages change as they move up a long hierachy, is surely part of the answer.
The hundreds of victims only came forward when Bates needed them to justify funding his legal action, at which point he went looking for them. Indeed, some victims, almost unbelievably (and we must hope there aren't too many jumping on for less genuine reasons) are only coming forward now.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
I really fail to see why Cooper would do so much better than Davey? The vast majority of LD target seats are Tory Remain seats in the south which are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, much like Davey. Indeed the LDs have been making big gains in such areas under Davey in the local elections.
Davey also looks more of a heavyweight than Cooper who to me looks like Swinson 2. Yes Davey might be hit a bit by the PO scandal but no more than Tory or Labour ministers were at the time in failing to pick up Horizon problems early enough
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Davey shunted Layla Moran off to become spokesperson for Foreign Affairs. Shadow Foreign is a non-job even for the Official Opposition; for the LibDems it's invisible. It's a real shame because she was good, and very visible, as Education spokesperson. But clearly this was deliberate.
A British Palestinian Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs is quite a niche move at the moment, you’d think she’d be quite visible
Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.
There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.
Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..
Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.
A clear winner of most disappointing PM of my lifetime. I had no positive expectations of Johnson or Truss, Brown and May probably performed to my lowish expectations, and quite liked Major, Blair and Cameron, of course they all got important things wrong too, but that's the job.
Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.
Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.
There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.
Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..
Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.
A clear winner of most disappointing PM of my lifetime. I had no positive expectations of Johnson or Truss, Brown and May probably performed to my lowish expectations, and quite liked Major, Blair and Cameron, of course they all got important things wrong too, but that's the job.
Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.
How quickly we forget that we were crying out for a boring, grey, technocrat after the Truss/BoJo years.
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Arbuthnot expressed the hope in a recent radio interview that he hoped there would not be too much of an obsession with Vennells. There are plenty of others who need to be nailed too.
Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
This was answered in the drama. It went into a suspense account and thence into reducing PO losses and eventually adding PO profits. The government was the only shareholder, I believe.
Of course the PO exec bonuses would have been funded from the apparent progress from loss to profits too.
Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
We already know that it dropped into the Post Office's bottom line, resting in various suspense accounts meanwhile, and that the improvement in bottom line benefitted the government as sole owner and shareholder (mostly by reducing PO losses and hence the government subsidy). So there is a certain logic in the government paying it back.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
I agree with this to an extent. She certainly has very serious questions to answer, but it is at least possible that she isn't Cruella Deville.
The death of Camila Batmanghelidjh the other day is a reminder of that. She was wickedness personified in the popular imagination at one time - corrupt, vain, and relaxed about child abuse in her organisation. A few years and some court cases later, and it turned out that she had her flaws as a charity CEO in terms of expanding too quickly and being insufficiently risk averse in financial planning. But the abuse and corruption stuff never really stacked up, and she turns out to have been an energetic and well-meaning person who made some serious but ultimately understandable errors.
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.
The same kind of people dominate public service, both direct and third sector. They did so under New Labour and before.
They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.
Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.
There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.
Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..
Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.
A clear winner of most disappointing PM of my lifetime. I had no positive expectations of Johnson or Truss, Brown and May probably performed to my lowish expectations, and quite liked Major, Blair and Cameron, of course they all got important things wrong too, but that's the job.
Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.
How quickly we forget that we were crying out for a boring, grey, technocrat after the Truss/BoJo years.
We were crying out for a boring, grey, /competent/ technocrat. Sadly Sunak has turned out to be missing that crucial adjective.
Possibly this is a reflection of the constraints placed on any PM by the current state of the Parliamentary Tory party & any PM would do just as badly in the same position, but it doesn’t seem from the outside that Sunak has the right stuff.
Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.
There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.
Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..
Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.
A clear winner of most disappointing PM of my lifetime. I had no positive expectations of Johnson or Truss, Brown and May probably performed to my lowish expectations, and quite liked Major, Blair and Cameron, of course they all got important things wrong too, but that's the job.
Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.
How quickly we forget that we were crying out for a boring, grey, technocrat after the Truss/BoJo years.
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Layla Moran has been speaking out on Gaza. She has relatives there; one of whom was killed towards the end of last year. She has been making some good and balanced points; e.g. it is possible to be pro-Gaza and yet be appalled and horrified by the events of 7 September and also for someone to be pro-Israel and yet be appalled by what is happening in Gaza.
She was in the news last year when Richard Madeley asked her a crass question about whether her relatives knew in advance about 7 September.
In other news, Reform UK have selected someone certifiably bonkers for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency:
"Augustine Chukwuma Obodo Snr is the UK leader of Friends Of Trump UK & Commonwealth Affairs for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He serves as an Advisory Board Member of Donald Trump for President, Inc, representing the Commonwealth Black Voices for President Donald J. Trump. Augustine founded the conservative advocacy group, Friends of Trump UK and Commonwealth Affairs, and has been its Group Chief Executive Officer since 2015."
Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
We already know that it dropped into the Post Office's bottom line, resting in various suspense accounts meanwhile, and that the improvement in bottom line benefitted the government as sole owner and shareholder (mostly by reducing PO losses and hence the government subsidy). So there is a certain logic in the government paying it back.
Yes I am aware of that but it has been lost into profits (or revenue?) but I wondered if it had been separately accounted for in which case the trail could be found.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
I agree with this to an extent. She certainly has very serious questions to answer, but it is at least possible that she isn't Cruella Deville.
The death of Camila Batmanghelidjh the other day is a reminder of that. She was wickedness personified in the popular imagination at one time - corrupt, vain, and relaxed about child abuse in her organisation. A few years and some court cases later, and it turned out that she had her flaws as a charity CEO in terms of expanding too quickly and being insufficiently risk averse in financial planning. But the abuse and corruption stuff never really stacked up, and she turns out to have been an energetic and well-meaning person who made some serious but ultimately understandable errors.
Ok, but when Second Sight began to report its findings, she had a grade A opportunity to front up. She didn't.
She will have another belated opportunity when she appears before the Public Inquiry this year. It will be fascinating viewing.
I agree with Arbuthnot that she shouldn't be demonised. It isn't helpful, and there are plenty of others deserving of equal scrutiny, but she sure does have a lot of questions to answer.
On topic, what does Daisy Cooper stand for? What do the Lib Dems stand for?
Davey's problem isn't so much the Post Office scandal, it's that he's a completely invisible presence on the stage. Why would anyone vote Lib Dem other than as an entirely tactical vote - which is an exceptionally weak foundation on which to build a strategy; one that cannot survive either the party gaining some sort of power and having to take tough decisions - other means of protest will be found - and must be tossed and turned as the relative popularity of the other parties changes.
Too many in the Lib Dems are stuck in a mindset from the 1980s and would try to bend the new political reality to that comfort zone than adapt their tactics and message to a changed world. It doesn't help that on a micro level, their tactics and messages work - they do still win by-elections here and there, and pick up gains where they put in the work - but isolated and unconnected victories based on transient tactical conditions (within a much wider sea of lost deposits, or equivalent) is treating politics as sport for an network of independents, not a political party.
While there's much to agree with in that -particularly on Davey and the lack of strategy - the "why would anyone vote Lib Dem other than as an entirely tactical vote" part is easy enough for habitual LD voters such as myself: liberalism. The other parties don't really offer that. The Tories did, to an extent, under Cameron - there is also a liberal Conservative tradition although it seems to have been lost post-Cameron and the great Tory purge under Johnson. Many in labour seem to lack liberal instincts, preferring greater state control.
In a seat where the LDs have a chance, the reason in clear - more liberal voices and votes in parliament, that can combine with the liberals from other parties to block some legislation and to support others. In safe seats, it expresses a preference, as any vote for a minor party does. UKIP, afterall, got noticed for vote share and influenced the direction of this country without winning any new seats.
Of course, under PR we'd have more parties. It might mean the end of the LDs, with a split into liberal centre-right (with some Tories) and liberal centre-left (with some from Labour). I would not see that as a bad thing, the de-merger, if you like, of the Liberals and SDP.
One might as well - or even more so - ask why vote Yorkshire Party, other than as a protest vote
ETA: I'm reasonably impressed by what I've seen of Cooper, but there is a danger of projection, where being #notDavey is seen as enough in the same way as Swinson was #notCable, without actually thinking about whether that is better or worse.
And I'd be delighted if the Lib Dems were to proudly and vividly wave the banner of liberalism. I don't doubt that there is a strong belief in it that runs through the party at all levels (though one too easily overtaken by the tactical demands of by-elections - see endless campaigning against people developing their land). But it ain't happening. God knows that in the world as it is there's a need for people to stand up for freedom of speech, of action, for the rule of law and for democracy, and to make those arguments from first principles because freedoms in society are a Good Thing. But I'm not seeing it happen. And without putting forward those basic beliefs and core values, there's no movement built on them, despite the opportunity.
As for the Yorkshire Party, leaving aside where we have won councillors, yes, of course there's a large element of a protest vote against the iniquitous allocation of money and power in the country. But it's also a protest for for an answer to that; we offer solutions as well as critique and complaint.
Yes. I think the LD message was lacking on Covid at times, particularly in the later outbreaks (more need for evidence for restrictions being effective and necessary, penalties proportionate and a clear distinction between law and guidance). In other areas, too, there's a lack of a strong voice for liberalism - or indeed, anything. Partly due to 4th party lack of exposure, but in those circumstances you need a leader who can get themselves noticed, a 'chatshow Charlie' for example.
My YP dig was light-hearted. I'm an occasional YP voter myself (in local elections, unlikely to do so in the GE, particularly as the new Selby constituency will likely be competitive - lots of Tories sitting on their hands for the by-election I think, so not a done-deal for Lab).
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it
Aren't the relevant voters the ones who voted in 2015 only? Those voting in 2010 didn't know they were voting for Coalition parties, and many were evidently very disappointed that it turned out as it did.
I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.
But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).
In other news, Reform UK have selected someone certifiably bonkers for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency:
"Augustine Chukwuma Obodo Snr is the UK leader of Friends Of Trump UK & Commonwealth Affairs for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He serves as an Advisory Board Member of Donald Trump for President, Inc, representing the Commonwealth Black Voices for President Donald J. Trump. Augustine founded the conservative advocacy group, Friends of Trump UK and Commonwealth Affairs, and has been its Group Chief Executive Officer since 2015."
I first wrote for my own website about this back in December 2021.
I only wrote about it on here in response to someone wondering why it had not gained any public traction because I thought the reasons for that were worth exploring. I also wanted to explain what can sometimes seem an obscure and complicated issue and bring out the similarities with other scandals and the political - in its widest sense - angle to this: it is about abuse of power and what happens when that is not challenged.
I also hope to bring the perspective of someone who has actually set up and run an investigations team and been involved in fraud and other investigations.
But the real work and honours go to Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly, Private Eye etc who really uncovered this.
I will have much to say about the misbehaviour of the lawyers in this. Their role has been utterly disgraceful - far more blameworthy than many of the other groups because they were the gatekeepers and could have stopped it. There will be more evidence to come on this.
The key issue to remember here is that this is not a one off. The playbook being used here is the same as that used by the state in lots of other scandals:
- denial - delay - diminish what has happened - disregard of those to whom it has happened.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
No-one was evil in the sense of actively wanting this to happen.
The investigating grunts in the PO might be seen as evil for the crude, simplistic way in which they went about extracting repayments from the SPMRs with shortfalls, but they knew no better.
We still don't know how and who made the decision to try and cover up the scandal when, probably astonishingly late in the story, the top of the PO realised what it was sitting on.
I sense that my imagining of a room full of PO directors and very senior legal folk all imploring Vennells to gamble on fighting dirty to make the whole thing go away, rather than coming clean at that stage with what was already the most scandalous mess, probably isn't far off the mark. Vennells, under such pressure, made the wrong, fatal decision for which - if the gamble failed - she was always going to, rightly, take most of the flak, while the others in that room now 'struggle to remember' the detail of what they did and said at the time.
The big clue is the complete change of approach the PO took, having apparently openly and genuinely agreed to (and paid for) the independent Second Sight investigation and the mediation scheme for Bates's initially small group of complainants. The 'evil' scenario is that they knew the full position at the time but thought they could stop Second Sight finding out. More likely, it was only when Second Sight started finding stuff that the top of the PO realised how bad things were.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Arbuthnot expressed the hope in a recent radio interview that he hoped there would not be too much of an obsession with Vennells. There are plenty of others who need to be nailed too.
The Post Office Scandal was the slowest of slow burners for a number of reasons, one of which was that all three main parties in England were implicated, so there was little interest in political campaigning to exploit it for Party purposes. Now that the issue has truly caught fire, we suddenly see efforts to put a Party spin on things.
The denizens of this Site are fortunate. Thanks to Cyclefree, IanB2, and one or two others, we have been ahead of the curve, and less susceptible to the kind of partisan tubthumping so typical of inferior Sites. Indeed, Ms C cautioned us against such inappropriate bias numerous times, and none more telling than the post in which she listed the numerous Ministers responsible for the PO throughout the period of the scandal. I will refresh your memories:
"Since 1998 the Business Ministers were:-
Peter Mandelson Patricia Hewitt Alan Johnson (ex-postman) Peter Mandelson (again)
followed by 9 Business Ministers since 2010:-
Vince Cable Sajid Javid Greg Clark Andrea Leadsom Alok Sharma Kwasi Kwarteng Nadine Dorries Michelle Donelan Kemi Badenoch.
Also since 2010 there have been Ministers with specific responsibility for postal affairs:-
Ed Davey Norman Lamb Jo Swinson Jenny Willott Jo Swinson (again) Margot James (the only Minister so far to express any regret about their role in this affair) Andrew Griffiths Kelly Tolhurst Paul Scully Kevin Hollinrake. "
Whilst it is wholly appropriate to ask Sir Ed Davey to answer some sharp questions, it's a bit rich to single him out from that lot. Fortunately the Posters Of PB are not readily susceptible to witchhunts and can be relied upon to take a broader, more balanced view....can't they?
Btw, Ms C puts in a word above for Margot James. Alan Bates himself puts in a kind word for Norman Lamb. The rest....well if we are going to ask questions of Ed Davey, why not the others?
Indeed.
What this episode actually illustrates is WHY politicians, particularly those who have achieved ministerial office, typically run a mile from campaigns and pressure groups unless and until they understand the consequences. And are no doubt so advised by Sir Humphrey.
Bates lobbied ministers before and after, and they all kept their distance, and if they got criticised at the time (or subsequently) for giving him the brush off, I must have missed it. Davey at least met Bates, listened to his concerns, put them to the PO, and fed the PO's (dishonest, we know now) response back. Even though it was very early in Britain's first coalition government since the war and he will have had two huge in-trays, political and ministerial.
By having made a tad more effort and offered a tad more engagement than his precessors and successors, his political and media opponents now have the chance to concoct their cynical smears based on nothing more than his having heard Bates's concerns in person rather than just set out by the letters received by every other minister.
The reason he’s getting attention rather than the others is because he’s the leader of one of the main parties - if he weren’t and one of the others listed were, they would be getting stick and he wouldn’t. He’s unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
Not true. The reason Davey is getting more attention is because of the Tory Dirty Tricks department working in tandem with media friends to push some chaff out to protect themselves.
But it’s not going to work, is it. The Tory’s are most exposed of all the parties for the simple reason as time went on the picture and evidence of injustice became much clearer to everyone - by the time it came to Kwarteng, Dorries and especially Badenoch.
Why did it take a TV programme to wake Rishi and Badenoch up - where were they on this a month ago? 4 months ago? That’s the next question.
The media coverage is going to be worse for the Tories than libdems. Becuase the picture of this government dragging its heels of compensation over the PO injustice has become much clearer too, not only something to blame recent governments more for than the older ones, but Tory’s already got form on this. What has been the only government vote defeat of this parliament? The media are going to latch onto the fact the Tories already have form for refusing to paying compensation.
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Davey shunted Layla Moran off to become spokesperson for Foreign Affairs. Shadow Foreign is a non-job even for the Official Opposition; for the LibDems it's invisible. It's a real shame because she was good, and very visible, as Education spokesperson. But clearly this was deliberate.
A British Palestinian Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs is quite a niche move at the moment, you’d think she’d be quite visible
She was asked on the Good Morning TV sofa whether she or her family knew about the Hamas attacks before they happened, which attracted a fair it of publicity.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Arbuthnot expressed the hope in a recent radio interview that he hoped there would not be too much of an obsession with Vennells. There are plenty of others who need to be nailed too.
The public now wants someone on the village green that they can throw fruit and veg at, more than they want to know what actually happened.
These Golden Globes are a dogs dinner. The host had the tone all wrong.
Liking Anatomy of a Fall and Beef being recognised. 👍🏻👍🏻 Disliking Oppenheimer getting a round one for Direction. 👎 I’m not much a fan of Bear or Crown either 👎👎
Havn’t seen Poor Things so can’t comment on that one, but it’s supposed to be bonkers and surprising. Don’t like Emma Stone at all but at least she beat the drivel that was Barbie
Are you Ben Shapiro?
Clearly not as I had to Google who he is.
“The conservative commentator set fire to two Barbie dolls in a scathing 43-minute video review of the film.”
It’s not that it tried to turn woke into an art form, though it did, it’s that it doesn’t make sense and is not even entertaining.
How can you live over there, the USA is nuts.
Ugh. Gongs for Barbie. This charade is nothing more than a Master Plumber annual dinner, handing out gongs for any old pump installation. What an utter waste of time.
Barbie won best box office achievement, a new category to show the awards don't ignore what viewers want to watch.
Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
If Sunak doesn’t dole out huge comedy cheques with generous compensation for those affected live on tv just before the GE, he doesn’t deserve to be PM
Unless those cheques are from Fujitsu’s bank account he better not be
"Post Office suspected of more injustices over Horizon pilot scheme Exclusive: software believed to have resulted in prosecutions even before full system rollout in 1999
The Post Office is suspected of wrongly prosecuting dozens more operators who took part in a pilot scheme of the faulty Horizon system, the Guardian has been told. Amid growing anger over the treatment of postmasters whose lives have been ruined in the scandal, Whitehall sources have confirmed that a precursor scheme was rolled out in 1995 and 1996 to hundreds of branches in north-east England. After taking part in the pilot, at least two branch managers were prosecuted despite protesting that there was a glitch in the system, a senior Labour MP has claimed."
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.
Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them
There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains
I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too
It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause
Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked
Yes, but the story was always there. The original Computer Weekly article - which they held off publishing for a year for fear of the consequences - contained six case studies of individuals who had, at that stage, suffered hugely, including bankruptcy and prison. The interesting question is why a campaign group and a website and a radio series and magazine coverage and a book and a parliamentary hearing all failed to attract the scale of public attention that this clearly deserved. Usually we rely on the Guardian to champion such stuff, but even they don't appear to have twigged.
Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".
That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.
Why do you think no one has REALLY bothered to find out where Covid came from? Put it differently, why have there been dozens of scientific papers all trying - and lamentably failing - to prove it came from the market, but barely any papers following the rather more obvious trail to the dodgy, insecure, Covid-virus-making bat lab 300 yards from the market?
Because all the main players have fingerprints at the scene. It was a Chinese lab with Chinese scientists, in China. But they were funded by American taxpayers, via Fauci and the NIH. And top European scientists and journals - from Farrar and the Lancet down, were all linked in to the research; and all of virology, indeed all of science, is endangered by this truth
We all know it came from the lab, it will take someone brave and independent to finally and definitively point out the bleedin’ obvious
On the subject of infallible computers, someone just sent me a note that the Alan Turing musical opens tonight for a three-week run at Riverside Studios. Wrap up warm!
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it
Aren't the relevant voters the ones who voted in 2015 only? Those voting in 2010 didn't know they were voting for Coalition parties, and many were evidently very disappointed that it turned out as it did.
I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.
But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).
Anti Conservatives will be mostly voting Labour, the only reason they would vote LD is that Labour stands no chance of winning in their seat.
Which applies to almost all the top 50 LD target seats, so they will likely tactically vote LD anyway whoever is LD leader if they live in those seats
"The Dutch childcare benefits scandal is a political scandal in the Netherlands concerning false allegations of fraud made by the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) while attempting to regulate the distribution of childcare benefits, that led to the collective resignation of the government in early 2021. Between 2005 and 2019, authorities wrongly accused an estimated 26,000 parents of making fraudulent benefit claims, requiring them to pay back the allowances they had received in their entirety. In many cases, this sum amounted to tens of thousands of euros, driving families into severe financial hardship."
Anyone spot a pattern here? New automated government schemes (to replace manual systems that, although slow, did the job okay), which end up falsely accusing huge numbers of innocent people.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
Slightly on topic, were we too busy discussing less weighty matters on 2nd January to notice the LibDem's heartfelt plea for the darts final to be free-to-air?
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
And James Arbuthnot, another very commendable person in this sorry tale.
What's fair compensation for all the distress and suffering of a postmaster falsely accused of stealing, losing their livelihood, and waiting years to for their name to be cleared?
If your answer is £5,000 then you probably work for the Post Office.
Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.
Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.
Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.
What have the Lib Dems got to lose?
As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........
I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.
(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)
Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it
Aren't the relevant voters the ones who voted in 2015 only? Those voting in 2010 didn't know they were voting for Coalition parties, and many were evidently very disappointed that it turned out as it did.
I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.
But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).
The real dilemma the LDs have is that to build national vote share they need to take some distinctive, even radical positions on national issues that get them noticed, whereas to hold the tiny handful of seats they have won in a voting system that is hugely difficult for them, they need to win over and maintain a coalition of voters from the other parties, heavily relying upon personal activity and tactical voting rather than political policy, and those MPs walk on ice, concerned to avoid doing anything that upsets significant numbers of their vote. They have the additional problem that whereas the seats they held when I was young included areas where they could rely on a traditional liberal party core vote (celtic fringe, etc), they now represent mostly relatively prosperous areas of educated middle class voters, and they often have to tiptoe around those voters' self-interest.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
These Golden Globes are a dogs dinner. The host had the tone all wrong.
Liking Anatomy of a Fall and Beef being recognised. 👍🏻👍🏻 Disliking Oppenheimer getting a round one for Direction. 👎 I’m not much a fan of Bear or Crown either 👎👎
Havn’t seen Poor Things so can’t comment on that one, but it’s supposed to be bonkers and surprising. Don’t like Emma Stone at all but at least she beat the drivel that was Barbie
Are you Ben Shapiro?
Clearly not as I had to Google who he is.
“The conservative commentator set fire to two Barbie dolls in a scathing 43-minute video review of the film.”
It’s not that it tried to turn woke into an art form, though it did, it’s that it doesn’t make sense and is not even entertaining.
How can you live over there, the USA is nuts.
Ugh. Gongs for Barbie. This charade is nothing more than a Master Plumber annual dinner, handing out gongs for any old pump installation. What an utter waste of time.
Barbie got bums on seats in cinemas - regardless of the merits of the movie, it stopped the rot in cinema-going. So it was always going to be looked upon kindly.
No Marky - nobody actually likes the Barbie Movie, regardless if they felt oddly compelled to check what the fuss is all about. Film industry Gongs should give a recognition to Art, not marketing.
What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites? Why couldn't people just admit they hated the movie?
I rated Barbie 4.5 on Letterboxd, the overall mean score is 3.9.
You have no concept how your Shareprice has crashed in my eyes. 😔
“the plot skipped past a number of gaping plot holes with charm and a wink.” 🤷♀️
To address head on Roberts “What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites?” Simples - it’s the same thing which put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Just like Barbie the Movie, people liked the concept, or promise, of Trump delivering a fresh new thing, and ignored the fact it was actually such a dogs dinner it didn’t deliver on that promise, or deliver anything at all really.
If you wish to understand the ongoing appeal of Trump to the MAGA crowd, just read Foxy’s Barbie review today. The plot had a number of gaping plot holes, but I liked the charm with which it “skipped” past them. WTF!
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.
Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them
There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains
I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too
It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause
Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked
It is notable that broadcast TV still has this (unique?) power to mobilise the nation. Although I expect a lot of people also watched it on ITVX once the buzz started.
In other power of television news, THE TV event of 2023 in the Russophone world was Слово пацана. Кровь на асфальте. Lit. The Boy's Word: Blood on Asphalt.
It's a series about Kazan hoodlums in 80s Moscow. It was also immensely popular in Ukraine with songs from it topping the Ukrainian download charts so now the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture is trying to ban it.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?
Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not
However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
Peter Hitchens thinks she should be forced to keep her CBE
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?
Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not
However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?
Yes this is how the world works. Guess I don't like how the world works.
What's fair compensation for all the distress and suffering of a postmaster falsely accused of stealing, losing their livelihood, and waiting years to for their name to be cleared?
If your answer is £5,000 then you probably work for the Post Office.
Well publicised, over generous compensation from the govt IMMEDIATELY would be a good thing for Sunak to get done
They found the money for bogus furlough, and expensive PPE soon enough
The Post Office Scandal was the slowest of slow burners for a number of reasons, one of which was that all three main parties in England were implicated, so there was little interest in political campaigning to exploit it for Party purposes. Now that the issue has truly caught fire, we suddenly see efforts to put a Party spin on things.
The denizens of this Site are fortunate. Thanks to Cyclefree, IanB2, and one or two others, we have been ahead of the curve, and less susceptible to the kind of partisan tubthumping so typical of inferior Sites. Indeed, Ms C cautioned us against such inappropriate bias numerous times, and none more telling than the post in which she listed the numerous Ministers responsible for the PO throughout the period of the scandal. I will refresh your memories:
"Since 1998 the Business Ministers were:-
Peter Mandelson Patricia Hewitt Alan Johnson (ex-postman) Peter Mandelson (again)
followed by 9 Business Ministers since 2010:-
Vince Cable Sajid Javid Greg Clark Andrea Leadsom Alok Sharma Kwasi Kwarteng Nadine Dorries Michelle Donelan Kemi Badenoch.
Also since 2010 there have been Ministers with specific responsibility for postal affairs:-
Ed Davey Norman Lamb Jo Swinson Jenny Willott Jo Swinson (again) Margot James (the only Minister so far to express any regret about their role in this affair) Andrew Griffiths Kelly Tolhurst Paul Scully Kevin Hollinrake. "
Whilst it is wholly appropriate to ask Sir Ed Davey to answer some sharp questions, it's a bit rich to single him out from that lot. Fortunately the Posters Of PB are not readily susceptible to witchhunts and can be relied upon to take a broader, more balanced view....can't they?
Btw, Ms C puts in a word above for Margot James. Alan Bates himself puts in a kind word for Norman Lamb. The rest....well if we are going to ask questions of Ed Davey, why not the others?
Indeed.
What this episode actually illustrates is WHY politicians, particularly those who have achieved ministerial office, typically run a mile from campaigns and pressure groups unless and until they understand the consequences. And are no doubt so advised by Sir Humphrey.
Bates lobbied ministers before and after, and they all kept their distance, and if they got criticised at the time (or subsequently) for giving him the brush off, I must have missed it. Davey at least met Bates, listened to his concerns, put them to the PO, and fed the PO's (dishonest, we know now) response back. Even though it was very early in Britain's first coalition government since the war and he will have had two huge in-trays, political and ministerial.
By having made a tad more effort and offered a tad more engagement than his precessors and successors, his political and media opponents now have the chance to concoct their cynical smears based on nothing more than his having heard Bates's concerns in person rather than just set out by the letters received by every other minister.
The reason he’s getting attention rather than the others is because he’s the leader of one of the main parties - if he weren’t and one of the others listed were, they would be getting stick and he wouldn’t. He’s unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
Not true. The reason Davey is getting more attention is because of the Tory Dirty Tricks department working in tandem with media friends to push some chaff out to protect themselves.
But it’s not going to work, is it. The Tory’s are most exposed of all the parties for the simple reason as time went on the picture and evidence of injustice became much clearer to everyone - by the time it came to Kwarteng, Dorries and especially Badenoch.
Why did it take a TV programme to wake Rishi and Badenoch up - where were they on this a month ago? 4 months ago? That’s the next question.
The media coverage is going to be worse for the Tories than libdems. Becuase the picture of this government dragging its heels of compensation over the PO injustice has become much clearer too, not only something to blame recent governments more for than the older ones, but Tory’s already got form on this. What has been the only government vote defeat of this parliament? The media are going to latch onto the fact the Tories already have form for refusing to paying compensation.
Which is why yesterday's lead was so cynical and shameful. Even the professional smear merchants at the Daily Mail only ran the Davey line as the secondary part of a story leading off with Sunak's comments about it.
I first wrote for my own website about this back in December 2021.
I only wrote about it on here in response to someone wondering why it had not gained any public traction because I thought the reasons for that were worth exploring. I also wanted to explain what can sometimes seem an obscure and complicated issue and bring out the similarities with other scandals and the political - in its widest sense - angle to this: it is about abuse of power and what happens when that is not challenged.
I also hope to bring the perspective of someone who has actually set up and run an investigations team and been involved in fraud and other investigations.
But the real work and honours go to Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly, Private Eye etc who really uncovered this.
I will have much to say about the misbehaviour of the lawyers in this. Their role has been utterly disgraceful - far more blameworthy than many of the other groups because they were the gatekeepers and could have stopped it. There will be more evidence to come on this.
The key issue to remember here is that this is not a one off. The playbook being used here is the same as that used by the state in lots of other scandals:
- denial - delay - diminish what has happened - disregard of those to whom it has happened.
Thanks. To these 'd's may be added 'dispersal, distribution or dilution'. This is how blame is dealt with, unless there is an obvious very junior defenceless candidate to take it all. In any complex matter large numbers of individuals and corporate bodies, public and private, are involved, from Parliament down to some defence solicitor's paralegal note taker from a small firm in Grimetown. Each and every one can point to somewhere up or down the long line and away from themselves. This is an important branch of 'complexification' which is also essential.
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
Peter Hitchens thinks she should be forced to keep her CBE
These Golden Globes are a dogs dinner. The host had the tone all wrong.
Liking Anatomy of a Fall and Beef being recognised. 👍🏻👍🏻 Disliking Oppenheimer getting a round one for Direction. 👎 I’m not much a fan of Bear or Crown either 👎👎
Havn’t seen Poor Things so can’t comment on that one, but it’s supposed to be bonkers and surprising. Don’t like Emma Stone at all but at least she beat the drivel that was Barbie
Are you Ben Shapiro?
Clearly not as I had to Google who he is.
“The conservative commentator set fire to two Barbie dolls in a scathing 43-minute video review of the film.”
It’s not that it tried to turn woke into an art form, though it did, it’s that it doesn’t make sense and is not even entertaining.
How can you live over there, the USA is nuts.
Ugh. Gongs for Barbie. This charade is nothing more than a Master Plumber annual dinner, handing out gongs for any old pump installation. What an utter waste of time.
Barbie got bums on seats in cinemas - regardless of the merits of the movie, it stopped the rot in cinema-going. So it was always going to be looked upon kindly.
No Marky - nobody actually likes the Barbie Movie, regardless if they felt oddly compelled to check what the fuss is all about. Film industry Gongs should give a recognition to Art, not marketing.
What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites? Why couldn't people just admit they hated the movie?
I rated Barbie 4.5 on Letterboxd, the overall mean score is 3.9.
You have no concept how your Shareprice has crashed in my eyes. 😔
“the plot skipped past a number of gaping plot holes with charm and a wink.” 🤷♀️
To address head on Roberts “What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites?” Simples - it’s the same thing which put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Just like Barbie the Movie, people liked the concept, or promise, of Trump delivering a fresh new thing, and ignored the fact it was actually such a dogs dinner it didn’t deliver on that promise, or deliver anything at all really.
If you wish to understand the ongoing appeal of Trump to the MAGA crowd, just read Foxy’s Barbie review today. The plot had a number of gaping plot holes, but I liked the charm with which it “skipped” past them. WTF!
There won’t be a sequel.
On a flight from Fort Lauderdale to New York before Christmas I saw Barbie by default. I was intending to watch Mission Impossible but the film was longer than the flight, so I watched Barbie. It was wonderfully and positively woke, clever and featured national treasure Rob Brydon!
"Post Office suspected of more injustices over Horizon pilot scheme Exclusive: software believed to have resulted in prosecutions even before full system rollout in 1999
The Post Office is suspected of wrongly prosecuting dozens more operators who took part in a pilot scheme of the faulty Horizon system, the Guardian has been told. Amid growing anger over the treatment of postmasters whose lives have been ruined in the scandal, Whitehall sources have confirmed that a precursor scheme was rolled out in 1995 and 1996 to hundreds of branches in north-east England. After taking part in the pilot, at least two branch managers were prosecuted despite protesting that there was a glitch in the system, a senior Labour MP has claimed."
Yes, which is the only bit I personally encountered, remembering a very brief canteen conversation with someone from the counters side of the business along the lines of, "you think you've got problems, you should see the mess we've got with these Horizon pilots". I'd gone from the business before most of what has been dramatised came to pass, and working on the mails side I never heard anything about Horizon after that lunchtime. You'd think the computer weekly article would have got the gossip on the grapevine going, but I don't recall hearing anything about it. Indeed the CW journalists thought their phones would be ringing off the hook after they published their expose, but said there was nothing; no interest at all.
Credit to CW for first putting the ball on the ground, but their publication was sadly the worst place to actually set it rolling.
What's fair compensation for all the distress and suffering of a postmaster falsely accused of stealing, losing their livelihood, and waiting years to for their name to be cleared?
If your answer is £5,000 then you probably work for the Post Office.
Well publicised, over generous compensation from the govt IMMEDIATELY would be a good thing for Sunak to get done
They found the money for bogus furlough, and expensive PPE soon enough
Rishi has had a very good start to 2024. His support for the sub-Postmasters confirms this.
If he followed PB he would however have been aware of the Post Office scandal before yesterday.
"The Dutch childcare benefits scandal is a political scandal in the Netherlands concerning false allegations of fraud made by the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) while attempting to regulate the distribution of childcare benefits, that led to the collective resignation of the government in early 2021. Between 2005 and 2019, authorities wrongly accused an estimated 26,000 parents of making fraudulent benefit claims, requiring them to pay back the allowances they had received in their entirety. In many cases, this sum amounted to tens of thousands of euros, driving families into severe financial hardship."
Anyone spot a pattern here? New automated government schemes (to replace manual systems that, although slow, did the job okay), which end up falsely accusing huge numbers of innocent people.
We forget, now, the almost insane faith in computer technology in the late 1990s, back when a holiday deal start-up website created by a couple of students in their back room was thought to be worth £££squillions.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.
Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them
There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains
I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too
It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause
Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked
It is notable that broadcast TV still has this (unique?) power to mobilise the nation. Although I expect a lot of people also watched it on ITVX once the buzz started.
In other power of television news, THE TV event of 2023 in the Russophone world was Слово пацана. Кровь на асфальте. Lit. The Boy's Word: Blood on Asphalt.
It's a series about Kazan hoodlums in 80s Moscow. It was also immensely popular in Ukraine with songs from it topping the Ukrainian download charts so now the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture is trying to ban it.
i watched some Russia Today last night - hotels in Bangkok often save money by skimping on their satellite station selection
RT was REALLY majoring on some WW2 history that showed how Estonia was closely, intimately united with the rest of the Soviet Union, so much so, it is basically all the same country
If I lived in the Baltics, I’d be a tad nervous about Putin’s next move
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
I wouldn't say ex Hollyoaks star Will Mellor was exactly a mirror image of Lee Castleton who he portrayed, though he did a reasonable job of it
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
The scenes imagined weren't those involving the PO folk. There, the producers trod very carefully, as Wallis has said in his blog. The imagined scenes were the domestic ones with the subpostmasters, where they needed succint dramatic conversation and emotional reaction to ground the storyline.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?
Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not
However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?
Point 3 rather misunderstands how settlements of legal cases work. This was, ultimately, a mutually agreed out of court settlement between the Post Office and postmasters to cover the claimant's compensation and legal fees. Had there been no legal fees (which is hardly likely), the agreed amount would have been nearer £12 million. It was never the case that £58 million was some kind of assessed amount intended as pure compensation.
Had the Post Office settled before tens of thousands of hours of legal fees had been racked up, they'd have spent a lot less. But it would have been their saving rather than the postmasters'. That's the danger of prolonged litigation and why you should seek to settle early if you can.
Perhaps, had the postmasters not settled out of court, they'd have received more than £12 million PLUS got a costs order against the Post Office. But they may not - that's the judgment you make in accepting a settlement.
It's true that is a lot of money in legal fees. But years of litigation representing hundreds of individuals is a hell of a lot of lawyer hours.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
Lucky for him, then, that the middle 'P' stands for public whereas the PO has for centuries been able to prosecute privately...
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Not me; I think it was Malms.
I think there's something in it too.
Is Malmes due to be the first PBers credited with adding a new term to the English language?
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.
Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them
There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains
I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too
It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause
Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked
Yes, but the story was always there. The original Computer Weekly article - which they held off publishing for a year for fear of the consequences - contained six case studies of individuals who had, at that stage, suffered hugely, including bankruptcy and prison. The interesting question is why a campaign group and a website and a radio series and magazine coverage and a book and a parliamentary hearing all failed to attract the scale of public attention that this clearly deserved. Usually we rely on the Guardian to champion such stuff, but even they don't appear to have twigged.
Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".
That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.
The political aspects of the scandal seem to me to date from around 2009, because it was in September 2009 that the Computer Weekly article showed that problems were widespead (citing 7 examples) and in the same year the sub-postmasters formed a campaign to coordinate their activities. So it's really from that year onwards that you would have expected the relevant ministers to have started asking serious questions of the Post Office, and those questions and a reluctance to accept trite explanations should have grown exponentially in the years that followed.
The Daily Express quote the ministers that Private Eye consider to have been at fault as follows:
"While the miscarriage of justice has been resurfaced and those accused cleared, there has been growing speculation over whether those in power could have done anything about it sooner. Some of the key political players during this time have now been highlighted and questions are now being asked how this could have been avoided and whether key warning signs were ignored. According to Private Eye these ministers were a mix of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Party ministers. The publication claimed the ministers “failed to properly examine the unfurling public scandal while holding the postal services brief”. These ministers included current Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, Norman Lamb, and former Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson. They were followed by a series of brief Conservative Party ministers, George Freeman, Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Margot James, Andrew Griffiths, and Kelly Tolhurst. These seven ministers have been named because of their roles within government at the time."
I'm surprised by the omission from that list of whoever had ministerial responsibility in the last few months of Brown's government since they were also within the timeframe, whoever it was seems to be succeeding in keeping their head down.
But the question also arises as to why this is being seen as a junior ministerial issue - by the mid 2010s it had surely become more than that. Only Johnson emerges with any credit, for belatedly instigating a public inquiry, and even that was only made statutory nearly two years into his premiership.
The political scandal continues to this day. Sunak's Government had been apparently content for the timescale for compensation to pootle along in the long grass until last week's ITV drama suddenly sparked widespread public outrage while revealing nothing that had not been known many years ago. In the face of the most widespread miscarriage of British justice ever, the government is being prompted to act not by long established facts but by its inability to continue to brush things under the carpet now that the public has finally found its voice.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
So what? Post Office didn’t need to consult his Office. And the problem with an issue like this is that it’s drip, drip, drip, not flood. Ms C is quite right IMHO. There are some lawyers and policy makers at the top of the Post Office who are soon, I hope, going to be squirming.
These Golden Globes are a dogs dinner. The host had the tone all wrong.
Liking Anatomy of a Fall and Beef being recognised. 👍🏻👍🏻 Disliking Oppenheimer getting a round one for Direction. 👎 I’m not much a fan of Bear or Crown either 👎👎
Havn’t seen Poor Things so can’t comment on that one, but it’s supposed to be bonkers and surprising. Don’t like Emma Stone at all but at least she beat the drivel that was Barbie
Are you Ben Shapiro?
Clearly not as I had to Google who he is.
“The conservative commentator set fire to two Barbie dolls in a scathing 43-minute video review of the film.”
It’s not that it tried to turn woke into an art form, though it did, it’s that it doesn’t make sense and is not even entertaining.
How can you live over there, the USA is nuts.
Ugh. Gongs for Barbie. This charade is nothing more than a Master Plumber annual dinner, handing out gongs for any old pump installation. What an utter waste of time.
Barbie got bums on seats in cinemas - regardless of the merits of the movie, it stopped the rot in cinema-going. So it was always going to be looked upon kindly.
No Marky - nobody actually likes the Barbie Movie, regardless if they felt oddly compelled to check what the fuss is all about. Film industry Gongs should give a recognition to Art, not marketing.
What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites? Why couldn't people just admit they hated the movie?
I rated Barbie 4.5 on Letterboxd, the overall mean score is 3.9.
You have no concept how your Shareprice has crashed in my eyes. 😔
“the plot skipped past a number of gaping plot holes with charm and a wink.” 🤷♀️
To address head on Roberts “What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites?” Simples - it’s the same thing which put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Just like Barbie the Movie, people liked the concept, or promise, of Trump delivering a fresh new thing, and ignored the fact it was actually such a dogs dinner it didn’t deliver on that promise, or deliver anything at all really.
If you wish to understand the ongoing appeal of Trump to the MAGA crowd, just read Foxy’s Barbie review today. The plot had a number of gaping plot holes, but I liked the charm with which it “skipped” past them. WTF!
There won’t be a sequel.
On a flight from Fort Lauderdale to New York before Christmas I saw Barbie by default. I was intending to watch Mission Impossible but the film was longer than the flight, so I watched Barbie. It was wonderfully and positively woke, clever and featured national treasure Rob Brydon!
Has everyone here been to Peppa Pig world? You’d like it.
Ignore the gaping plot holes, 5/5 for Rob Bryson being in it.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?
Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not
However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?
Point 3 rather misunderstands how settlements of legal cases work. This was, ultimately, a mutually agreed out of court settlement between the Post Office and postmasters to cover the claimant's compensation and legal fees. Had there been no legal fees (which is hardly likely), the agreed amount would have been nearer £12 million. It was never the case that £58 million was some kind of assessed amount intended as pure compensation.
Had the Post Office settled before tens of thousands of hours of legal fees had been racked up, they'd have spent a lot less. But it would have been their saving rather than the postmasters'. That's the danger of prolonged litigation and why you should seek to settle early if you can.
Perhaps, had the postmasters not settled out of court, they'd have received more than £12 million PLUS got a costs order against the Post Office. But they may not - that's the judgment you make in accepting a settlement.
It's true that is a lot of money in legal fees. But years of litigation representing hundreds of individuals is a hell of a lot of lawyer hours.
AIUI it wasn't legal fees. They were funded by litigation funding which of course requires a return and I beleve that was where the bulk of the £56m went.
Litigation funding is a thing and it is growing. A bit like the no-win/no-fee models.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
The scenes imagined weren't those involving the PO folk. There, the producers trod very carefully, as Wallis has said in his blog. The imagined scenes were the domestic ones with the subpostmasters, where they needed succint dramatic conversation and emotional reaction to ground the storyline.
Yes, I am sure the more public scenes. - involving PO staff etc - were ruthlessly legalled before they were broadcast. The potential for libel suits is obvious
Ms Vennells could argue that she was portrayed in demeanour and expression as a hatchet faced old cow, but expression and demeanour are not quantifiable things on which you can build litigation
It was all very cleverly done. Right down to the kind hearted cake lady who preferred making scones to adding up annoying figures. Everyone knows someone sweet like that. It was superbly manipulative
If I lived in the Baltics, I’d be a tad nervous about Putin’s next move
I don't think they have any reason to be nervous at all. The "Loudmouth Baltics" (as M. V. Zakharova calls them, LOL) are inside the EU and NATO not outside, knocking on the door with dog shit on their tattered shoes, like Ukraine. They don't have anything like the cultural and emotional heft that Donbas, Odessa, etc. have to Russia.
Also, the armed forces of the Russian Federation are advancing at the rate of one izba every four weeks. It's laughable to propose that they are any sort of conventional military threat to the LBs.
However, VVP doesn't follow his dreams, he follows his opportunties. If he got the chance to stir shit inside the LBs and foment social and political strife I have zero doubt that he'd do it.
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.
The same kind of people dominate public service, both direct and third sector. They did so under New Labour and before.
They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.
I'm not sure, there are some overlaps but I know people in both groups and I'd say they are mostly quite different.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
I wouldn't say ex Hollyoaks star Will Mellor was exactly a mirror image of Lee Castleton who he portrayed, though he did a reasonable job of it
Richard Rolls was nothing like the person I watched giving evidence to the Inquiry, either in appearance or manner. The scene he was involved in was however done brilliantly, and got the gist of the matter across succinctly.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
So what? Post Office didn’t need to consult his Office. And the problem with an issue like this is that it’s drip, drip, drip, not flood. Ms C is quite right IMHO. There are some lawyers and policy makers at the top of the Post Office who are soon, I hope, going to be squirming.
Well quite. The Post Office was in the unusual position of being able to instigate criminal prosecutions entirely independently of the DPP.
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Not me; I think it was Malms.
I think there's something in it too.
Is Malmes due to be the first PBers credited with adding a new term to the English language?
“Lagershed”, surely
Also NU10K is an excellent concept - I entirely agree - but a horribly clumsy neologism. It sounds like it refers to Number 10 Downing Street. How do you even say it? The clever idea needs a better word
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.
But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
I wouldn't say ex Hollyoaks star Will Mellor was exactly a mirror image of Lee Castleton who he portrayed, though he did a reasonable job of it
Richard Rolls was nothing like the person I watched giving evidence to the Inquiry, either in appearance or manner. The scene he was involved in was however done brilliantly, and got the gist of the matter across succinctly.
Brilliant tv.
Monica Dolan, however, was (made up to look like) the spit of Jo Castleton.
Meanwhile, if there's any truth in it, the biggest political news may be this:
Jeremy Corbyn has been tipped to decide in just “weeks” whether to launch a new political movement to rival Keir Starmer’s Labour Party.
According to friends of the former Labour leader, Corbyn could launch a new party which could take voters dissatisfied with the current Labour Party away from Starmer.
People like us always assume a breakaway party can suddenly gain vast swathes of votes from upset voters of pre-existing parties.
They can't, and they won't. Bootle voters doesn't vote Labour because people love Labour, Peter Dowd, Keir Starmer. Bootle voters votes Labour because Dad told them to vote Labour.
Frank Field got less than 7,500 votes in 2019 in Birkenhead and Labour held the seat easily. As mentioned, outside of Islington North, this theoretical new party wouldn't win any other seats. They might act as a small spoiler for Labour but nothing more.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
The scenes imagined weren't those involving the PO folk. There, the producers trod very carefully, as Wallis has said in his blog. The imagined scenes were the domestic ones with the subpostmasters, where they needed succint dramatic conversation and emotional reaction to ground the storyline.
Yes, I am sure the more public scenes. - involving PO staff etc - were ruthlessly legalled before they were broadcast. The potential for libel suits is obvious
Ms Vennells could argue that she was portrayed in demeanour and expression as a hatchet faced old cow, but expression and demeanour are not quantifiable things on which you can build litigation
It was all very cleverly done. Right down to the kind hearted cake lady who preferred making scones to adding up annoying figures. Everyone knows someone sweet like that. It was superbly manipulative
That same person whose just been on Woman's Hour this morning! If she took a tupperware box of cupcakes along, you couldn't hear them eating.
"Over the weekend, the Lib Dems said Davey did eventually meet Bates in October 2010 - and that he was the first postal affairs minister to hold such a meeting since campaigners began pressing for talks in 2003."
A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.
The same kind of people dominate public service, both direct and third sector. They did so under New Labour and before.
They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.
I'm not sure, there are some overlaps but I know people in both groups and I'd say they are mostly quite different.
The kind of hedge fund and city folk and dodgy right wing think tanks and private sector millionaires and property developers and oil companies etc. that fund the Conservative Party aren't hugely noted for their interest in public service
Comments
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".
That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.
Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".
Sunak is probably the apogee of not bothering in any way to answer questions (and actually Truss, in her very short time, was a rare case of making at least some attempt to do so). But it's never been a forum for forensic questioning on worthy, long term issues, as there is zero chance of a meaningful answer emerging in front of 600 baying MPs. It's traded zingers on the issue of the day to try to get the soundbite or just maybe elicit a gaffe, and a taking of the temperature on whether the PM and LOTO have their troops enthused.
There is also a romantic view that it used to be much more serious. It wasn't, and never will be - it's pantomime.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4647580#Comment_4647580 Note the importance of no consequences for other NU10k club members. You scratch their back, they’ll scratch yours if that time ever comes.
Who is in the NU10k club? All sorts of people. But generally, if you can leave your current job & expect to be parachuted into a nice sinecure as the Director of a non-profit org then you’re probably in the club. Note that the club is apolitical - party affiliation is not in and of itself relevant to whether you’re in the club or not. Some MPs are in the club whilst others are not, probably because they committed the cardinal sin of criticising club members at some point.
There’s probably a universal truth of human relations that an inchoate organisation like this forms in any country - with ill defined boundaries, no membership lists & no written rules. Somehow the members all know the rules even if they’re never quite sure whether they’re in the club or not.
Actually I thought they gave the two women a teensy bit of sympathy - Vennells looking mortified in church, and van den Boegard (sp) quietly sobbing at her desk.
Or has Joey jumped on the antiwoke grift train.
"Augustine Chukwuma Obodo Snr is the UK leader of Friends Of Trump UK & Commonwealth Affairs for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He serves as an Advisory Board Member of Donald Trump for President, Inc, representing the Commonwealth Black Voices for President Donald J. Trump. Augustine founded the conservative advocacy group, Friends of Trump UK and Commonwealth Affairs, and has been its Group Chief Executive Officer since 2015."
https://augustineobodo.uk
(via https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1744294284801478789 )
The PO should have known, first, because of the growing number of legal cases it was dealing with. Why this never set off any alarm bells is a key question for the inquiry. The "this is how shit happens" story/joke posted this morning, about how messages change as they move up a long hierachy, is surely part of the answer.
The hundreds of victims only came forward when Bates needed them to justify funding his legal action, at which point he went looking for them. Indeed, some victims, almost unbelievably (and we must hope there aren't too many jumping on for less genuine reasons) are only coming forward now.
Davey also looks more of a heavyweight than Cooper who to me looks like Swinson 2. Yes Davey might be hit a bit by the PO scandal but no more than Tory or Labour ministers were at the time in failing to pick up Horizon problems early enough
Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.
Of course the PO exec bonuses would have been funded from the apparent progress from loss to profits too.
The death of Camila Batmanghelidjh the other day is a reminder of that. She was wickedness personified in the popular imagination at one time - corrupt, vain, and relaxed about child abuse in her organisation. A few years and some court cases later, and it turned out that she had her flaws as a charity CEO in terms of expanding too quickly and being insufficiently risk averse in financial planning. But the abuse and corruption stuff never really stacked up, and she turns out to have been an energetic and well-meaning person who made some serious but ultimately understandable errors.
They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.
Possibly this is a reflection of the constraints placed on any PM by the current state of the Parliamentary Tory party & any PM would do just as badly in the same position, but it doesn’t seem from the outside that Sunak has the right stuff.
She was in the news last year when Richard Madeley asked her a crass question about whether her relatives knew in advance about 7 September.
She will have another belated opportunity when she appears before the Public Inquiry this year. It will be fascinating viewing.
I agree with Arbuthnot that she shouldn't be demonised. It isn't helpful, and there are plenty of others deserving of equal scrutiny, but she sure does have a lot of questions to answer.
My YP dig was light-hearted. I'm an occasional YP voter myself (in local elections, unlikely to do so in the GE, particularly as the new Selby constituency will likely be competitive - lots of Tories sitting on their hands for the by-election I think, so not a done-deal for Lab).
I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.
But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Ixx37lQKY&t=289s&ab_channel=MeidasTouch
I first wrote for my own website about this back in December 2021.
I only wrote about it on here in response to someone wondering why it had not gained any public traction because I thought the reasons for that were worth exploring. I also wanted to explain what can sometimes seem an obscure and complicated issue and bring out the similarities with other scandals and the political - in its widest sense - angle to this: it is about abuse of power and what happens when that is not challenged.
I also hope to bring the perspective of someone who has actually set up and run an investigations team and been involved in fraud and other investigations.
But the real work and honours go to Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly, Private Eye etc who really uncovered this.
I will have much to say about the misbehaviour of the lawyers in this. Their role has been utterly disgraceful - far more blameworthy than many of the other groups because they were the gatekeepers and could have stopped it. There will be more evidence to come on this.
The key issue to remember here is that this is not a one off. The playbook being used here is the same as that used by the state in lots of other scandals:
- denial
- delay
- diminish what has happened
- disregard of those to whom it has happened.
The investigating grunts in the PO might be seen as evil for the crude, simplistic way in which they went about extracting repayments from the SPMRs with shortfalls, but they knew no better.
We still don't know how and who made the decision to try and cover up the scandal when, probably astonishingly late in the story, the top of the PO realised what it was sitting on.
I sense that my imagining of a room full of PO directors and very senior legal folk all imploring Vennells to gamble on fighting dirty to make the whole thing go away, rather than coming clean at that stage with what was already the most scandalous mess, probably isn't far off the mark. Vennells, under such pressure, made the wrong, fatal decision for which - if the gamble failed - she was always going to, rightly, take most of the flak, while the others in that room now 'struggle to remember' the detail of what they did and said at the time.
The big clue is the complete change of approach the PO took, having apparently openly and genuinely agreed to (and paid for) the independent Second Sight investigation and the mediation scheme for Bates's initially small group of complainants. The 'evil' scenario is that they knew the full position at the time but thought they could stop Second Sight finding out. More likely, it was only when Second Sight started finding stuff that the top of the PO realised how bad things were.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-paula-vennells-of-her-cbe
(And no, I don't know if they are real people.)
But it’s not going to work, is it. The Tory’s are most exposed of all the parties for the simple reason as time went on the picture and evidence of injustice became much clearer to everyone - by the time it came to Kwarteng, Dorries and especially Badenoch.
Why did it take a TV programme to wake Rishi and Badenoch up - where were they on this a month ago? 4 months ago? That’s the next question.
The media coverage is going to be worse for the Tories than libdems. Becuase the picture of this government dragging its heels of compensation over the PO injustice has become much clearer too, not only something to blame recent governments more for than the older ones, but Tory’s already got form on this. What has been the only government vote defeat of this parliament? The media are going to latch onto the fact the Tories already have form for refusing to paying compensation.
https://x.com/leighsus/status/1744310006210605271?s=20
Oppenheimer won best drama film and best director
Exclusive: software believed to have resulted in prosecutions even before full system rollout in 1999
The Post Office is suspected of wrongly prosecuting dozens more operators who took part in a pilot scheme of the faulty Horizon system, the Guardian has been told. Amid growing anger over the treatment of postmasters whose lives have been ruined in the scandal, Whitehall sources have confirmed that a precursor scheme was rolled out in 1995 and 1996 to hundreds of branches in north-east England. After taking part in the pilot, at least two branch managers were prosecuted despite protesting that there was a glitch in the system, a senior Labour MP has claimed."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/07/post-office-suspected-of-more-wrongful-prosecutions-of-operators-over-horizon
Because all the main players have fingerprints at the scene. It was a Chinese lab with Chinese scientists, in China. But they were funded by American taxpayers, via Fauci and the NIH. And top European scientists and journals - from Farrar and the Lancet down, were all linked in to the research; and all of virology, indeed all of science, is endangered by this truth
We all know it came from the lab, it will take someone brave and independent to finally and definitively point out the bleedin’ obvious
ALAN TURING - A MUSICAL BIOGRAPHY
https://riversidestudios.co.uk/see-and-do/alan-turing-a-musical-biography-95097/
Which applies to almost all the top 50 LD target seats, so they will likely tactically vote LD anyway whoever is LD leader if they live in those seats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme
Also, one in the Netherlands.
"Dutch childcare benefits scandal"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_childcare_benefits_scandal
"The Dutch childcare benefits scandal is a political scandal in the Netherlands concerning false allegations of fraud made by the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) while attempting to regulate the distribution of childcare benefits, that led to the collective resignation of the government in early 2021. Between 2005 and 2019, authorities wrongly accused an estimated 26,000 parents of making fraudulent benefit claims, requiring them to pay back the allowances they had received in their entirety. In many cases, this sum amounted to tens of thousands of euros, driving families into severe financial hardship."
Anyone spot a pattern here? New automated government schemes (to replace manual systems that, although slow, did the job okay), which end up falsely accusing huge numbers of innocent people.
OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on
https://www.libdems.org.uk/press/release/darts-final-must-be-free-to-air-tv
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation
2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity
3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs
4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
https://swingometer.substack.com/p/what-would-a-really-big-labour-win
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1744313909283094573
What's fair compensation for all the distress and suffering of a postmaster falsely accused of stealing, losing their livelihood, and waiting years to for their name to be cleared?
If your answer is £5,000 then you probably work for the Post Office.
I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.
“the plot skipped past a number of gaping plot holes with charm and a wink.” 🤷♀️
To address head on Roberts “What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites?” Simples - it’s the same thing which put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Just like Barbie the Movie, people liked the concept, or promise, of Trump delivering a fresh new thing, and ignored the fact it was actually such a dogs dinner it didn’t deliver on that promise, or deliver anything at all really.
If you wish to understand the ongoing appeal of Trump to the MAGA crowd, just read Foxy’s Barbie review today.
The plot had a number of gaping plot holes, but I liked the charm with which it “skipped” past them. WTF!
There won’t be a sequel.
In other power of television news, THE TV event of 2023 in the Russophone world was Слово пацана. Кровь на асфальте. Lit. The Boy's Word: Blood on Asphalt.
It's a series about Kazan hoodlums in 80s Moscow. It was also immensely popular in Ukraine with songs from it topping the Ukrainian download charts so now the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture is trying to ban it.
Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not
However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12933785/PETER-HITCHENS-Make-Post-Office-boss-CBE-reminder-justice-strangled.html
They found the money for bogus furlough, and expensive PPE soon enough
A question:
Who you attach more blame to, the PO staff and management (aka overpromoted public sector bods) or the lawyers that advised them?
Which of these classes did the show demonise?
Certainly the show painted the PO management in a very bad light. But how could they not? The PO did some seriously bad shit
I think there's something in it too.
Credit to CW for first putting the ball on the ground, but their publication was sadly the worst place to actually set it rolling.
Also looks a bit like Debbie off the Street. Possible positive.
If he followed PB he would however have been aware of the Post Office scandal before yesterday.
RT was REALLY majoring on some WW2 history that showed how Estonia was closely, intimately united with the rest of the Soviet Union, so much so, it is basically all the same country
If I lived in the Baltics, I’d be a tad nervous about Putin’s next move
Had the Post Office settled before tens of thousands of hours of legal fees had been racked up, they'd have spent a lot less. But it would have been their saving rather than the postmasters'. That's the danger of prolonged litigation and why you should seek to settle early if you can.
Perhaps, had the postmasters not settled out of court, they'd have received more than £12 million PLUS got a costs order against the Post Office. But they may not - that's the judgment you make in accepting a settlement.
It's true that is a lot of money in legal fees. But years of litigation representing hundreds of individuals is a hell of a lot of lawyer hours.
The Daily Express quote the ministers that Private Eye consider to have been at fault as follows:
"While the miscarriage of justice has been resurfaced and those accused cleared, there has been growing speculation over whether those in power could have done anything about it sooner. Some of the key political players during this time have now been highlighted and questions are now being asked how this could have been avoided and whether key warning signs were ignored. According to Private Eye these ministers were a mix of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Party ministers. The publication claimed the ministers “failed to properly examine the unfurling public scandal while holding the postal services brief”. These ministers included current Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, Norman Lamb, and former Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson. They were followed by a series of brief Conservative Party ministers, George Freeman, Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Margot James, Andrew Griffiths, and Kelly Tolhurst. These seven ministers have been named because of their roles within government at the time."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1852090/post-office-scandal-political-players-warning-signs
I'm surprised by the omission from that list of whoever had ministerial responsibility in the last few months of Brown's government since they were also within the timeframe, whoever it was seems to be succeeding in keeping their head down.
But the question also arises as to why this is being seen as a junior ministerial issue - by the mid 2010s it had surely become more than that. Only Johnson emerges with any credit, for belatedly instigating a public inquiry, and even that was only made statutory nearly two years into his premiership.
The political scandal continues to this day. Sunak's Government had been apparently content for the timescale for compensation to pootle along in the long grass until last week's ITV drama suddenly sparked widespread public outrage while revealing nothing that had not been known many years ago. In the face of the most widespread miscarriage of British justice ever, the government is being prompted to act not by long established facts but by its inability to continue to brush things under the carpet now that the public has finally found its voice.
Ms C is quite right IMHO. There are some lawyers and policy makers at the top of the Post Office who are soon, I hope, going to be squirming.
Ignore the gaping plot holes, 5/5 for Rob Bryson being in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoD29jRuLrA
Litigation funding is a thing and it is growing. A bit like the no-win/no-fee models.
https://thehedgefundjournal.com/the-emerging-market-for-litigation-funding/
Edit: of course compensating a hedge fund for funding your legal action is a form of "legal fee".
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/latest-uk-politics-live-sunak-under-pressure-horizon-post-office-scandal-2842313
Ms Vennells could argue that she was portrayed in demeanour and expression as a hatchet faced old cow, but expression and demeanour are not quantifiable things on which you can build litigation
It was all very cleverly done. Right down to the kind hearted cake lady who preferred making scones to adding up annoying figures. Everyone knows someone sweet like that. It was superbly manipulative
Also, the armed forces of the Russian Federation are advancing at the rate of one izba every four weeks. It's laughable to propose that they are any sort of conventional military threat to the LBs.
However, VVP doesn't follow his dreams, he follows his opportunties. If he got the chance to stir shit inside the LBs and foment social and political strife I have zero doubt that he'd do it.
Brilliant tv.
Also NU10K is an excellent concept - I entirely agree - but a horribly clumsy neologism. It sounds like it refers to Number 10 Downing Street. How do you even say it? The clever idea needs a better word
They can't, and they won't. Bootle voters doesn't vote Labour because people love Labour, Peter Dowd, Keir Starmer. Bootle voters votes Labour because Dad told them to vote Labour.
Frank Field got less than 7,500 votes in 2019 in Birkenhead and Labour held the seat easily.
As mentioned, outside of Islington North, this theoretical new party wouldn't win any other seats. They might act as a small spoiler for Labour but nothing more.
"Over the weekend, the Lib Dems said Davey did eventually meet Bates in October 2010 - and that he was the first postal affairs minister to hold such a meeting since campaigners began pressing for talks in 2003."
So who was Post Office minister from 2003-2010?