I was under another misapprehension. The Post Office, since 1985 at least, does not have its own 'special powers' to prosecute.
The powers are statutory, but are the same powers any individual or corporate body has to bring a prosecution: The powers fall under Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Similarly with the RSPCA, while historically it was unusual in having an active role in regularly bringing prosecutions, it has been doing so since 1985 under the same powers that a private individual possesses. The RSPCA has recently voluntarily given up conducting private prosecutions.
Five pages on the history of the Post Office's investigatory and prosecuting powers, for anoraks only:
Regardless of the precise legal position, the reality is that the PO occupied a privileged position within the legal system where there was a presumption that they had the right to prosecute. That document makes it clear that they had access to police records & facilities (It would be interesting to know /what/ facilities: that’s a curiously non-specific term. Interview rooms? Jail cells?) that would ordinarily not be available to any private company or individual.
If a random FTSE company tried to bring a private prosecution then one would expect the CPS to cast a jaundiced eye over the whole thing, not least for reasons of bureaucratic turf protection. At the same time the PO was being given a free pass to prosecute as they saw fit.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
You and isam are making the claim. I've looked through two recent examples and found no references. I feel the onus is now on you two to back up your claim now.
On topic, even if Haley wins NH (which I think is possible but unlikely), it won't make much difference to the race, part because (as Mike says) Democrats can vote so it will be spun as a spoiler, part because NH is not a great predictor, part because Iowa is likely to see a major Trump win.
Not also sure if this has been mentioned but another poll out in Michigan - 8 point lead for Trump
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
What caused this? The Truss's disastrous trade deal with Australia?
I'm going to stereotype rural voters now and wonder if it's that they recoiled at the uncouthness of Boris and the recklessness of Truss, and haven't recovered support since. The stereotypical rural voter doesn't like rapid change, thinks people need to know and be comfortable with their station in life, values honesty and loyalty and that people should keep their promises.
This swing is one reason I think the Lib Dems could outperform expectations in their old West Country stomping grounds this year, while slightly disappointing hopes in the Blue Wall where tax cuts will bring back the Tory faithful.
Labour encroaching on rural seats does rather make the LD-Labour tactical vote position a bit more complicated though, as Mid Beds demonstrated.
There is no such thing as a "rural" or "urban" voter in the sense that there are many at all issues which uniquely affect either group. Both sets shop at Tesco or Sainsbury. One set will have farm vehicles clogging up the lanes sometimes, while the other will have to handle LTNs.
There are of course socio-economic demographics but even in, say, Chipping Norton, there are as many C2 &DEs, indeed more than AB & C1s.
To an extent, and much of the UK is of course a rurban marginal zone, but they are demographically and economically different. If they weren't we wouldn't get such stark colour-coded maps come election time.
Urban areas are more Labour, Rural areas are more Conservative, and whilst some of that is explained by age or ethnic composition by no means all of it is. The same is true in pretty much every Western democracy.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, there's a systemic problem that each court proceeding only considers a specific case, and if ONE person claims that the computer is wrong then in the absence of evidence to back that up the court isn't likely to believe them (any this is also true if one person writes to a Minister - in fairness I don't think Ed Davey can reasonably have been expected to leap into action on a single case). What is needed is someone keeping an eye out for unusual patterns of incidents following a change in software, and the blame for not doing that does rest with the Post Office, surely?
Yes, with the Post Office, but also with Fujitsu, who were aware of problems way back.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
True, Darkage, but it is perfectly understandable. Vennells was rewarded for delivering the results Government wanted, but they were grounded on lies and fraud. In principle you would like to think her rewards should be rescinded.
In practice, I think it ain't possible,
Playing Devil’s advocate slightly but do we know what the targets were for Vennells as boss? If her bonus was based on pure financial performance than it’s potentially arguable whether all financial outperformance for which her bonus was calculated came from the proceeds of the scandal. It could be (and I obviously don’t know or have the figures) that all of it did, half of it did or a small percentage did in which case can she legally have her bonuses completely clawed back if it can be shown that the scandal would still have left her outperforming if it hadn’t happened.
Her bonus could also have been factored on other indicators such as improvements in delivery times or scale, staff efficiencies or other factors.
Again I’m not trying to defend her for no reason but maybe the clamour to claw back her bonuses needs to be more nuanced?
In practice I think it's impossible, nuanced or otherwise.
Amongst her rewards were the gong and a position in the Cabinet office. Both date from 2019. I think when the hoohah over Davy and SKS dies down a bit, we say see a more forensic examination of who was responsible for these. That would be worth knowing, but nobody is owning up at the moment.
The gong has of course gone back now, but nothing yet about her salary/pension from the Cabinet Office.
The gong has not gone back. Vennells has offered to give it back, but her doing so has no legal status. She still officially has it until such point as the King rescinds it, which he can do under the advice of the government.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Why don't you.
You're the one making the claim. Substantiate it.
No need. I know I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, there's a systemic problem that each court proceeding only considers a specific case, and if ONE person claims that the computer is wrong then in the absence of evidence to back that up the court isn't likely to believe them (any this is also true if one person writes to a Minister - in fairness I don't think Ed Davey can reasonably have been expected to leap into action on a single case). What is needed is someone keeping an eye out for unusual patterns of incidents following a change in software, and the blame for not doing that does rest with the Post Office, surely?
Possibly, but a significant part of the point of introducing the software (given by Peter Lilley, who was minister at the time back in the 1990s) was to crack down on fraud in post offices, particularly relating to benefit payments.
So the fact that more fraud was being identified, and successful prosecutions brought, could very easily be explained as the system working well rather than failing badly.
Indeed - and this is an incredibly unpopular thing to say just now - whilst the convictions based on the IT are unsafe as the IT was unreliable, and many involved innocent people being convicted - fraud by postmasters has historically been a problem as they are small businesses handling a significant volume of transfer payments so the temptation and opportunity exists. It wasn't and shouldn't be seen as weird that quite a lot of prosecutions get brought in this area.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
Many rural England seats will become three-way marginals, I think.
But this will be concentrated in the south-east and some of the south-west. I think the Midlands and North rural seats will be a little better for the Conservatives because the demographics are different.
Potentially even four-way in future in the odd rural seat, if the Greens can ditch the Corbynista entrists and focus on environmental issues. Some strong results in the locals IIRC (e.g. Mid Suffolk).
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
Many rural England seats will become three-way marginals, I think.
But this will be concentrated in the south-east and some of the south-west. I think the Midlands and North rural seats will be a little better for the Conservatives because the demographics are different.
Potentially even four-way in future in the odd rural seat, if the Greens can ditch the Corbynista entrists and focus on environmental issues. Some strong results in the locals IIRC (e.g. Mid Suffolk).
Yes, that's right.
I expect we'll look back on this time and wonder why we didn't see that the Labour majority price was stonking value.
I see Michelle Obama is now into the teens for Democratic Nominee.
That really is silly. I wish I had deeper pockets.
I noticed that she and her husband are Executive Producers on the Netflix Leave the World Behind which I started two minutes of before thinking it was a bit too worthy so settled instead for rewatching Black Hawk Down.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
What caused this? The Truss's disastrous trade deal with Australia?
I'm going to stereotype rural voters now and wonder if it's that they recoiled at the uncouthness of Boris and the recklessness of Truss, and haven't recovered support since. The stereotypical rural voter doesn't like rapid change, thinks people need to know and be comfortable with their station in life, values honesty and loyalty and that people should keep their promises.
This swing is one reason I think the Lib Dems could outperform expectations in their old West Country stomping grounds this year, while slightly disappointing hopes in the Blue Wall where tax cuts will bring back the Tory faithful.
Labour encroaching on rural seats does rather make the LD-Labour tactical vote position a bit more complicated though, as Mid Beds demonstrated.
They are not being asked whether they would vote for Boris or Truss as PM; they're being asked if they'd vote for Sunak. He owns and frankly deserves the resounding 'No'.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
What caused this? The Truss's disastrous trade deal with Australia?
More Brexit making a bad situation worse.
You need to learn to embrace Brexit like Lord Cameron has. When the leader of the Remain campaign switches sides, you know it was the night thing to do.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
Many rural England seats will become three-way marginals, I think.
But this will be concentrated in the south-east and some of the south-west. I think the Midlands and North rural seats will be a little better for the Conservatives because the demographics are different.
Does three way marginals imply no appetite for anti Tory tactical voting?
Besides, those in villages and rural areas see Steve Reed as merely gobby and full of himself not a Champion of their issues this spun journalism implies I think.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
That's fine, Topping. No problem. 👍 I am right. If you think I'm wrong, then prove it.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
Pretty easy to do a Hansard search on Starmer and Director Public Prosecutions.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
They usually do, on the assumption that the tax gets paid by somebody else….
That's the problem. As an analogy, ask someone at 6pm before a work bash whether they think it's a better idea to have a couple of drinks then head home and get a reasonable night's sleep, or get blind drunk and roll in at 3am with a terrible hangover the next day. 90% of them will go for the first option. Come 9pm how many of them will be heading home after a couple of drinks?
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
The big questions in phase five, which probably won't even start until late spring, is "who decided to pull out of the constructive approach of getting to the bottom of things, and instead try and see off the campaign with obstruction?" - much of the inquiry will of course be occupied in establishing this in the first place - to which the answer has to be Vennells, in terms of where the buck stops - unless she can point to any pressure from the Chairman and/or Government (the latter would blow the scandal sky high, of course)...
...and whose idea was it in the first place - almost certainly not Vennells but whether a culprit will ever be identified remains to be seen - plus who devised and implemented such a legally disingenous strategy, the execution of which involved lots of smaller misdeeds along the way? The whole legal side of the company from board down to the individual lawyers should be facing some hard questions.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
No I think we'll just ignore your contribution in this case.
The good news is all these Starmer smears are in front of the paywall. Bargain!
How is that even a story? What a weird thing to print.
It's quite an interesting story about how cold and uncomfortable the palace of Westminster is. They should just shut it for a couple of years, decamp to the NEC or a big Hilton somewhere, and then come back to a nicely and more efficiently refurbished Westminster. The Starmer derangement syndrome spin is the weird bit.
Oh I agree with that. Westminster renovation is another long running saga of wasted money, time and facility almost on a par with HS2.
It would have been worthwhile building HS2 in its entirety if it had been done about 10 years ago, before costs escalating for various reasons. (Look how successful the Elizabeth Line has been since it opened).
In 10 years time, there will a PB post: "If only we'd started on HS2 10 years ago..."
Instead the cash is being used to fill potholes in London and fund a possible cut in inheritance tax. It's pathetic.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
Many rural England seats will become three-way marginals, I think.
But this will be concentrated in the south-east and some of the south-west. I think the Midlands and North rural seats will be a little better for the Conservatives because the demographics are different.
Does three way marginals imply no appetite for anti Tory tactical voting?
Besides, those in villages and rural areas see Steve Reed as merely gobby and full of himself not a Champion of their issues this spun journalism implies I think.
We may get a few 3 way seats. Most will coalesce behind whichever party has the base and momentum to remove the Tory.
Basic question. The remaining handful of PB Tories are very observant of the specks of dust in Starmer's eye as potential reasons why people shouldn't vote Labour. But seem resolutely blind to the massive Jewson shop of planks in their own eyes as to why people have resolved not to vote Tory.
On topic - and someone may have pointed this out down thread - but OGH says, "One thing that might help her is that Democratic voters who are totally opposed to Trump might vote in the GOP primary. There are no Dem elections on the same day."
There is actually a Democrat primary in New Hampshire on the same day as the Republican one. The DNC has hotly contested the scheduling, Biden isn't on the ballot (although there is a write-in campaign), and the status of delegates elected at the convention is undecided.
Quite a few Democrats might skip it for the Republican primary (and many more simply won't bother). But it isn't accurate that, when they go to the polling station, they won't have the option of voting in the Democrat primary for New Hampshire instead.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
That’s true if we’re talking about the risk of getting sacked. It’s less true when we might be talking about fines or jail time.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
That's fine, Topping. No problem. 👍 I am right. If you think I'm wrong, then prove it.
This new way of doing things is going to make for very empty threads on PB.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
The story so far. A fine gentleman named Peter Lilley commissioned a PFI scheme to install whizzo new computers into the Post Office. Then a git called Keith Donkey held an illegal beer and curry meeting in Fujitsu HQ and spilled a can of Stella and some Vindaloo sauce into the server. Chaos ensued...
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
You say "almost a weekly occurrence in PMQs". A basic search of Hansard says he mentioned it twice in 2023. Starmer appeared at PMQs more than, well, twice in 2023. I look forward to your retraction.
They usually do, on the assumption that the tax gets paid by somebody else….
That's the problem. As an analogy, ask someone at 6pm before a work bash whether they think it's a better idea to have a couple of drinks then head home and get a reasonable night's sleep, or get blind drunk and roll in at 3am with a terrible hangover the next day. 90% of them will go for the first option. Come 9pm how many of them will be heading home after a couple of drinks?
Yup. For example, my views on where certain tax thresholds should kick in have, shall we say, “evolved” as my salary has increased over the years.
In 1997 rural England saved the Tories from an extinction level event.
Rural voters are more likely to back Labour than the Tories at the next election following a huge swing to the Left in traditionally true blue territory, new polling suggests.
The Conservatives have been warned “a Portillo moment is possible anywhere” as a newly-released survey put Sir Keir Starmer’s party four points ahead in the countryside.
It comes as Labour has vowed to “park our tanks on the Tories’ fields” in a bid to claw back the rural vote, with Steve Reed, the new shadow environment secretary, leading the charge.
The poll, by Labour Together, found that 34 per cent of people in villages or rural areas would back Sir Keir’s party at the next election, compared to 30 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.
It amounts to a 17-point swing to Labour compared with 2019, based on the respondents’ self-reported voting history.
What caused this? The Truss's disastrous trade deal with Australia?
I'm going to stereotype rural voters now and wonder if it's that they recoiled at the uncouthness of Boris and the recklessness of Truss, and haven't recovered support since. The stereotypical rural voter doesn't like rapid change, thinks people need to know and be comfortable with their station in life, values honesty and loyalty and that people should keep their promises.
This swing is one reason I think the Lib Dems could outperform expectations in their old West Country stomping grounds this year, while slightly disappointing hopes in the Blue Wall where tax cuts will bring back the Tory faithful.
Labour encroaching on rural seats does rather make the LD-Labour tactical vote position a bit more complicated though, as Mid Beds demonstrated.
They are not being asked whether they would vote for Boris or Truss as PM; they're being asked if they'd vote for Sunak. He owns and frankly deserves the resounding 'No'.
I don't think Sunak alone would have triggered such an allergic reaction - look at the many previous Tory leaders and ministers who weren't dissimilar. But coming after those two he certainly doesn't do much to redress the balance given I expect he is seen as extremely metropolitan and South Eastern (despite having a rural northern constituency).
The big swings to Lib Dems in deep rural byelections started in the Boris era, epitomised by both North Shropshire and Tiverton and Honiton being triggered by sleaze.
Phnom Penh at dusk. Might just be the best place on earth
Not to everyone’s taste, I admit. If you hate urban filth, hedonism, pollution, crowds, booze, squalor, weirdness, chaos and people boiling cow’s brains in metal buckets by the road then you won’t like it. I love it
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
The good news is all these Starmer smears are in front of the paywall. Bargain!
How is that even a story? What a weird thing to print.
It's quite an interesting story about how cold and uncomfortable the palace of Westminster is. They should just shut it for a couple of years, decamp to the NEC or a big Hilton somewhere, and then come back to a nicely and more efficiently refurbished Westminster. The Starmer derangement syndrome spin is the weird bit.
Oh I agree with that. Westminster renovation is another long running saga of wasted money, time and facility almost on a par with HS2.
It would have been worthwhile building HS2 in its entirety if it had been done about 10 years ago, before costs escalating for various reasons. (Look how successful the Elizabeth Line has been since it opened).
In 10 years time, there will a PB post: "If only we'd started on HS2 10 years ago..."
Instead the cash is being used to fill potholes in London and fund a possible cut in inheritance tax. It's pathetic.
I am reminded of the kicking new nuclear power stations down the road because they would only be ready in some mad far off date. Year 2022 or something.
They usually do, on the assumption that the tax gets paid by somebody else….
That's the problem. As an analogy, ask someone at 6pm before a work bash whether they think it's a better idea to have a couple of drinks then head home and get a reasonable night's sleep, or get blind drunk and roll in at 3am with a terrible hangover the next day. 90% of them will go for the first option. Come 9pm how many of them will be heading home after a couple of drinks?
Works both ways, though.
We're at the point where even holding taxes steady is going to require more cuts to public spending.
And everyone is happy with that, as long as the things they use don't get withdrawn or rendered hopelessly rubbish.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
That’s true if we’re talking about the risk of getting sacked. It’s less true when we might be talking about fines or jail time.
If you can't do time, don't do crime. I find it really quite easy not to steal, commit perjury etc.
I see Michelle Obama is now into the teens for Democratic Nominee.
That really is silly. I wish I had deeper pockets.
The market must have looked at our Predictions Comp and gone, "Hey that spooky Kuntibula on PB has put Obama for the Dem nomination, hmm."
Cue a wave of money ...
I reckon the one everyone's sleeping on is Ivanka Trump for the GOP nomination.
If Trump gets disqualified (17% chance per Polymarket) and still gets the most delegates (likely) he's not going go off and play golf until they come to take him to jail, he's going to run a proxy. Preferably someone with the same name, and no independent political career. It's either Ivanka or Donald Jr and if he wants to win he'll pick Ivanka.
On topic, even if Haley wins NH (which I think is possible but unlikely), it won't make much difference to the race, part because (as Mike says) Democrats can vote so it will be spun as a spoiler, part because NH is not a great predictor, part because Iowa is likely to see a major Trump win.
Not also sure if this has been mentioned but another poll out in Michigan - 8 point lead for Trump
Forget Trump for the moment. The early race is about who is the real challenger to Trump: Haley, DeSantis or Ramaswamy.
I've been working on the assumption that DeSantis is a busted flush. Does he really have any sort of chance?
My assumption has been that DeSantis will drop out in the week between Iowa and New Hampshire. There have been reports he is running out of money and his campaign to out-MAGA Trump is going nowhere. By dropping out before he is comprehensively tonked, he can position himself as heir to Trump in 2028. However, if he perceives a high chance of Trump being disqualified in the next couple of months, he might linger, but this will probably not happen.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
Meanwhile the Government contracts continue to roll in for Fujitsu... Is there noone else that can provide services for the weather, HMRC etc ?
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
Pretty easy to do a Hansard search on Starmer and Director Public Prosecutions.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
So it's been mentioned ten times the amount on this one PB thread than by Starmer in the whole of last year? That's a ridiculous imbalance. Really quite disturbing. Either he has to start talking about it a lot more or we need to button it for a while.
I see Michelle Obama is now into the teens for Democratic Nominee.
That really is silly. I wish I had deeper pockets.
The market must have looked at our Predictions Comp and gone, "Hey that spooky Kuntibula on PB has put Obama for the Dem nomination, hmm."
Cue a wave of money ...
I reckon the one everyone's sleeping on is Ivanka Trump for the GOP nomination.
If Trump gets disqualified (17% chance per Polymarket) and still gets the most delegates (likely) he's not going go off and play golf until they come to take him to jail, he's going to run a proxy. Preferably someone with the same name, and no independent political career. It's either Ivanka or Donald Jr and if he wants to win he'll pick Ivanka.
The laws on candidacy (aka sore loser laws) will make that interesting.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, although in the (small minority) cases of alleged theft, you'd think questions like "where's the money?" and "where's the evidence that my client ever had the money?" and "why would my client take £30,000 when he/she knows that the subpostmaster has to make their losses good?" or "how did my client ever manage to steal such a huge amount of cash from their SPSO without their returns - i.e. the cash they actually sent back - not being hugely anomalous in relation to their past accounts?"....
...would have been worth asking?
Though presumably there were some genuine cases of embezzlement and false accounting amongst the many untrue cases. Impossible to reliably detect though with what we know now about Horizon.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
Meanwhile the Government contracts continue to roll in for Fujitsu... Is there noone else that can provide services for the weather, HMRC etc ?
They probably have great contacts in HMG, great experience in knowing what they look for, know exactly how to play the procurement process (both "quality" and commercial scorings) and keep low-balling the price.
Then it doesn't matter. They will win each and every one.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
The story so far. A fine gentleman named Peter Lilley commissioned a PFI scheme to install whizzo new computers into the Post Office. Then a git called Keith Donkey held an illegal beer and curry meeting in Fujitsu HQ and spilled a can of Stella and some Vindaloo sauce into the server. Chaos ensued...
Will this be on itv? Perhaps with somebody very unappealing playing Donkey?
I see Michelle Obama is now into the teens for Democratic Nominee.
That really is silly. I wish I had deeper pockets.
The market must have looked at our Predictions Comp and gone, "Hey that spooky Kuntibula on PB has put Obama for the Dem nomination, hmm."
Cue a wave of money ...
I reckon the one everyone's sleeping on is Ivanka Trump for the GOP nomination.
If Trump gets disqualified (17% chance per Polymarket) and still gets the most delegates (likely) he's not going go off and play golf until they come to take him to jail, he's going to run a proxy. Preferably someone with the same name, and no independent political career. It's either Ivanka or Donald Jr and if he wants to win he'll pick Ivanka.
The laws on candidacy (aka sore loser laws) will make that interesting.
Not saying you're wrong but what's the relevance of sore loser laws? If Trump has the delegates at the convention (and also a decent grip on the party machine for rules disputes etc) then whoever he picks is the winner of the Republican primary.
Phnom Penh is the new place to die. I have decided
It’s got all the chaotic optimistic buzz of Thai cities - especially Bangkok - about 40 years ago before they got all fat and lazy and fucked with 7-11s
You say "almost a weekly occurrence in PMQs". A basic search of Hansard says he mentioned it twice in 2023. Starmer appeared at PMQs more than, well, twice in 2023. I look forward to your retraction.
He mentioned it at least 18 times according to a rudimentary search by whoever it was upthread, perhaps you also, and that doesn't include the times when he didn't mention it explicitly and said words to that effect. It is his theme song and he implies it when he doesn't say it so I continue to be right on this matter.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
Meanwhile the Government contracts continue to roll in for Fujitsu... Is there noone else that can provide services for the weather, HMRC etc ?
It is the corporate equivalent of the Nu10k. There are only a handful of large players angling for government contracts, which is why Capita and G4S are so often rewarded for failure away from computer projects. And they will be keen to point to Baroness Mome and other PPE contracts and say, look, see what happens when you try a new angle!
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
The story so far. A fine gentleman named Peter Lilley commissioned a PFI scheme to install whizzo new computers into the Post Office. Then a git called Keith Donkey held an illegal beer and curry meeting in Fujitsu HQ and spilled a can of Stella and some Vindaloo sauce into the server. Chaos ensued...
If Tory dirty tricks team, all their old media friends and new media trollbots put exactly that story everywhere, it will act as effective cloud of chaff and smokescreen. These smokescreens do work. It disguises who’s been the real power in this land for 14 long years - especially in the last 7 of those years when an absolute scandal here becoming increasingly flipping obvious.
But that’s not the most serious point. History books will say, the main Achilles Hill the Sunak administration died on was over promising. That’s the now all too predictable Rishi reflex - the “whatever it takes”. Are they again over promising - hamstrung by needing the full report and real good workable options that satisfies the anger? Will they do anything that matches their own hype and expectations?
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
You say "almost a weekly occurrence in PMQs". A basic search of Hansard says he mentioned it twice in 2023. Starmer appeared at PMQs more than, well, twice in 2023. I look forward to your retraction.
He mentioned it at least 18 times according to a rudimentary search by whoever it was upthread, perhaps you also, and that doesn't include the times when he didn't mention it explicitly and said words to that effect. It is his theme song and he implies it when he doesn't say it so I continue to be right on this matter.
18 times since he became Leader of the Opposition, some years ago. It's not exactly "Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs." I can't remember who made that claim. You're right on lots of things, Topping. Perhaps you know who made that claim.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
Pretty easy to do a Hansard search on Starmer and Director Public Prosecutions.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
So it's been mentioned ten times the amount on this one PB thread than by Starmer in the whole of last year? That's a ridiculous imbalance. Really quite disturbing. Either he has to start talking about it a lot more or we need to button it for a while.
Why do you continue to talk about Starmer saying he was Director of Public Prosecutions? Give it a rest - he says it all the time and so does PB.
I see Michelle Obama is now into the teens for Democratic Nominee.
That really is silly. I wish I had deeper pockets.
The market must have looked at our Predictions Comp and gone, "Hey that spooky Kuntibula on PB has put Obama for the Dem nomination, hmm."
Cue a wave of money ...
I reckon the one everyone's sleeping on is Ivanka Trump for the GOP nomination.
If Trump gets disqualified (17% chance per Polymarket) and still gets the most delegates (likely) he's not going go off and play golf until they come to take him to jail, he's going to run a proxy. Preferably someone with the same name, and no independent political career. It's either Ivanka or Donald Jr and if he wants to win he'll pick Ivanka.
I have done those 2 Trumps for small sums. Then with Michelle I backed at 120 and laid back at 28 so all good there too.
But for me, on the betting, it's all about Donald Trump really. I have a big short on him for the WH. Every other realistic outcome is green for me.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, although in the (small minority) cases of alleged theft, you'd think questions like "where's the money?" and "where's the evidence that my client ever had the money?" and "why would my client take £30,000 when he/she knows that the subpostmaster has to make their losses good?" or "how did my client ever manage to steal such a huge amount of cash from their SPSO without their returns - i.e. the cash they actually sent back - not being hugely anomalous in relation to their past accounts?"....
...would have been worth asking?
Though presumably there were some genuine cases of embezzlement and false accounting amongst the many untrue cases. Impossible to reliably detect though with what we know now about Horizon.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
There would have been genuine cases of embezzlement. I saw on one of the documentaries the numbers were minuscule prior to, and in comparison to, when the Fujitsu software was installed. Surely someone would have spotted that and it cause a red flag ?
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
Meanwhile the Government contracts continue to roll in for Fujitsu... Is there noone else that can provide services for the weather, HMRC etc ?
It is the corporate equivalent of the Nu10k. There are only a handful of large players angling for government contracts, which is why Capita and G4S are so often rewarded for failure away from computer projects. And they will be keen to point to Baroness Mome and other PPE contracts and say, look, see what happens when you try a new angle!
It's not so much NU10K, as that, as you say, only a few big outfits bid on these things.
Because the bidding is designed around big suppliers.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, although in the (small minority) cases of alleged theft, you'd think questions like "where's the money?" and "where's the evidence that my client ever had the money?" and "why would my client take £30,000 when he/she knows that the subpostmaster has to make their losses good?" or "how did my client ever manage to steal such a huge amount of cash from their SPSO without their returns - i.e. the cash they actually sent back - not being hugely anomalous in relation to their past accounts?"....
...would have been worth asking?
Though presumably there were some genuine cases of embezzlement and false accounting amongst the many untrue cases. Impossible to reliably detect though with what we know now about Horizon.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
There would have been genuine cases of embezzlement. I saw on one of the documentaries the numbers were minuscule prior to, and in comparison to, when the Fujitsu software was installed. Surely someone would have spotted that and it cause a red flag ?
Post Office had always been convinced there was a lot of fraud going on that they didn't know about, so when they installed the computer system and it flagged up a lot more "criminal activity", it proved what they'd suspected all along. That's why no-one thought it was unusual.
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
That’s true if we’re talking about the risk of getting sacked. It’s less true when we might be talking about fines or jail time.
If you can't do time, don't do crime. I find it really quite easy not to steal, commit perjury etc.
Maybe I just have mad skillz ?
Not relevant to my point. If they have committed a crime they should be dealt with. The point I was responding to implied they should be accountable for any and all crimes committed by their minions.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
The story so far. A fine gentleman named Peter Lilley commissioned a PFI scheme to install whizzo new computers into the Post Office. Then a git called Keith Donkey held an illegal beer and curry meeting in Fujitsu HQ and spilled a can of Stella and some Vindaloo sauce into the server. Chaos ensued...
If Tory dirty tricks team, all their old media friends and new media trollbots put exactly that story everywhere, it will act as effective cloud of chaff and smokescreen. These smokescreens do work. It disguises who’s been the real power in this land for 14 long years - especially in the last 7 of those years when an absolute scandal here becoming increasingly flipping obvious.
But that’s not the most serious point. History books will say, the main Achilles Hill the Sunak administration died on was over promising. That’s the now all too predictable Rishi reflex - the “whatever it takes”. Are they again over promising - hamstrung by needing the full report and real good workable options that satisfies the anger? Will they do anything that matches their own hype and expectations?
It isn't over-promising. What are people's big complaints in 2024. Travelling by train is an absolute lottery. Getting a GP appointment is like a lottery win. Front line health and schools provision crumbling in front of us. Councils both jacking up council tax by the maximum amount *and* collapsing towards bankruptcy. Some urban and suburban areas being practically a demilitarised zone there is so much crime.
People aren't bothered about the big promises. They want - and expect - the basics to be done properly. Then they look at their tax bill and their rent / mortgage bill and wonder what the hell they are paying for.
The UK is taxed to an absurd level and has services that appear to be bankrupt. And punters have noticed.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
Maybe that affirms my earlier statement about silly comments
It’s a dirty trucks full of dirty tricks smokescreen Big G, not join in with that - better use of us moderates time is asking what are the actual options to help these badly wronged postmasters, are any of the options any good in retrospect after some died as criminals?
I’m not an expert, but I think there’s only the one option, allowing them to appeal on mass. And even that’s a bit limp.
Any changes that “ensures it doesn’t happen again” are themselves smokescreens from genuine help to the wronged people.
Why do governments always drag their heels in addressing these things, like the obvious blood scandals. Is it just like spending billions on re election giveaways and not proper things, or is it genuine legal mine field ☹️
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
It was Royal Mail which was sold off. Not the Post Office. It is and always has been owned by us the taxpayer.
Treating it as if it were a private company and keeping it at arm's length makes no sense of that leads to no effective oversight at all, which is what happened here, despite the fact that the government has to fund it. And was probably more involved in some of the key decisions than it is letting on.
The arm's length excuse is just that. Day to day operational independence is one thing. But at some point Ministers must have supervisory responsibility, especially if its failings result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer and the worst miscarriage of justice in legal history.
I was under another misapprehension. The Post Office, since 1985 at least, does not have its own 'special powers' to prosecute.
The powers are statutory, but are the same powers any individual or corporate body has to bring a prosecution: The powers fall under Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Similarly with the RSPCA, while historically it was unusual in having an active role in regularly bringing prosecutions, it has been doing so since 1985 under the same powers that a private individual possesses. The RSPCA has recently voluntarily given up conducting private prosecutions.
Five pages on the history of the Post Office's investigatory and prosecuting powers, for anoraks only:
Regardless of the precise legal position, the reality is that the PO occupied a privileged position within the legal system where there was a presumption that they had the right to prosecute. That document makes it clear that they had access to police records & facilities (It would be interesting to know /what/ facilities: that’s a curiously non-specific term. Interview rooms? Jail cells?) that would ordinarily not be available to any private company or individual.
If a random FTSE company tried to bring a private prosecution then one would expect the CPS to cast a jaundiced eye over the whole thing, not least for reasons of bureaucratic turf protection. At the same time the PO was being given a free pass to prosecute as they saw fit.
Taking the risk of relying on the veracity of ANYTHING ever produced by the Post Office, this is what Royal Mail said specifically in 2010 in the document linked to by IanB2:
" Royal Mail Legal Services, the successor to the Post Office Solicitor’s Office continues to be recognized by the Ministry of Justice as a private prosecutor and prosecutes on Royal Mail’s account in England and Wales."
In England and Wales it is ultimately government ministers (i.e. the Lord Chancellor, currently Alex Chalk) who have allowed the Post Office to act as a private prosecutor, not only in the past but up to this day. In 2013, the abuse of the Post Office's prosecuting powers wasn't on the radar, as such abuse of that position was only gradually exposed by the various investigations and legal challenges over the past decade. Yet it's being claimed that the DPP who left office in 2013 should have somehow persuaded the then Lord Chancellor (Chris Grayling in 2013, after Ken Clarke and before him Jack Straw) that he should take over those prosecuting arrangements in the absence of any evidence then of abuse of the Post Office's prosecuting powers. That claim is made despite the fact that even in 2024 Conservative ministers have not yet to made any move to consider the removal of the ability of the Post Office to bring private prosecutions. So it's a risible Conservative political stunt to distract attention, and while the Telegraph and the PB Tories may choose to obsess about Starmer's role up to 2013, they are whistling in the wind.
The question that is getting traction is the one asking why it has taken an ITV drama that revealed absolutely nothing new to finally prompt the government to act to speed up a resolution of the victims' claims, after nearly a decade of Conservative governments during which most of the key facts were already known early on and during which they were content for the matter to pootle along in the long grass.
Yet another moon landing project that will never happen. They dont have spacesuits or a landing craft! Its amazing that in the 1960s using just pens and papers for design they could develop this equipment, yet with all the modern technology that exists, it can't.
No. The issue is that NASA never learnt how to build anything on a budget.
Right at the start, it was "Waste everything but the" on Apollo. The political support for Apollo was as development funds for the American South. LBJ used the firehouse of NASA money to buy votes for all kinds of things.
So the system was set in stone - NASA projects are used a subsidies to the winners in a political game of poker.
The problem is not technology - it is project structure and management has defeated the attempts to do anything. Hence SLS is a warmed up Shuttle technology and the Orion capsule is a retread of Apollo.
The Altair lander (cancelled) would have cost $40 billion to develop. That was the initial estimate, not the expanded reality that would have occurred.
The reason it was cancelled was that in the pork slicing game, not enough money was going through NASA. So they could only pay for SLS (the rocket) and Orion (the capsule. Even that required farming the service module for Orion out to Europe.
This why, under Obama, the mission was to an asteroid - with a rocket and capsule, you need a destination which doesn't need a lander.
The space suit thing is somewhat similar - but even more fucked up by internal politics in the NASA space suit division. Who have, in effect, blocked new space suits.
In the case of the lander, the current plan is to use the giant rocket that SpaceX is building - which means that the tiny Orion capsule will rendezvous in Lunar orbit with a spaceship the size of a large building. farcical is not the word....
Space suits are under way but will be late. SpaceX are working on their own - they are progressing to an EVA capable suit (tethered) this year. And probably won't stop there.
I both agree with, and disagree with, this.
On the space suits, I believe that every few years NASA would start a new space suit project, only for funding to be cut after a couple of years. Bridenstine said something like "We spent more starting projects to make new spacesuits than it would have cost to stick with the first project."
It's mostly not about NASA not learning to build anything to a budget: it's about political interference. NASA are told what to build, and what to spend building it. Hence the stupidity of SLS's second mobile launcher, which no sane organisation would build. But NASA is forced to, at vast cost.
The biggest problem with Aries is not the SLS - which has flown, albeit at vast cost - or the spacesuits. The main problem is SpaceX's lander. They've still got a massive amount of work to do and, worse, technology to develop and prove. That's where the delay'll come in.
The latest news is that there are issues with the launch escape system for Ares III and new heat shield issues. They had to change the heat shield design after the one test of the system so far.
SLS and Orion were supposed to be zero new tech. But that has proven to be wrong.
The space suit problem is only partly political. There was a weird loop, where counter pressure suit tech would win technology conceptions and then the space suit division would announce that they didn't want that. They even went as far as claiming that the astronauts who took part in the counter pressure suits tests in the 60s were... lying about the results! Similarly, full hard shell hard suits were dismissed.
Yes, they're performing some small changes to SLS/Orion, given what they learnt. That was expected.
But SLS worked pretty much perfectly first time out of the box. It sent the three-quarters-boilerplate Orion capsule around the Moon.
So let's look at what SpaceX need to do, at a broad-brush level:
*) Get SS into orbit. *) Get SS to land. *) Get SH to land. *) Get good enough reliability on SH/SS in order to: *) Launch often enough to get up to 20 (SpaceX say 8, NASA say 16-20) rockets into space in a short timescale, to: *) Test and perfect refuelling a lander. *) Test a landing on the Moon. *) Test launch from the Moon and Earth-orbit rendezvous. *) All the above enough to man-rate the Lunar lander (not SH/SS)
That's a massive workload, including some things that have never been attempted before, even at a small scale. There's a chance that SpaceX get all of that done in the next couple of years; I'd bet against it.
For Orion, alone -
- The heat shield for the next one will be all new. The original design didn't work properly. So it may get its test on the first manned flight. What could go wrong? - The LAS is being reworked - The life support system is in final testing now. It has never been flown. - The navigation system is new. The one flown on the previous test was a temporary fix. - etc
There are major changes between each Orion capsule - all the way to the end of the current production line. This is the problem with having such a hardware poor program - the production models are the test models.
For SLS itself - the upper stage comedy.....
Yes, and those are challenges. But they are orders of magnitude less than the list I gave above.
On the life support, I just remember what DK Brown said about the British nuclear sub program. He reckoned the life-support was more work than the actual nuclear propulsion development.
An this one will have to work first time.
Yes, but the same is true of SpaceX's lunar lander as well. And the same with SS's heat shield as well (which is of a very different type to Dragon).
SpaceX have a series of mahoosive hurdles to straddle before they can send a man down to the lunar surface. For me, the SLS's technical issues pale into relative insignifcance.
The HLS lander contract(s) require demonstrating the pieces on a series of milestones, not a single all up, manned mission.
EDIT: the SS heat shield is not required. If required, the tankers, like the lander, will be expendable.
On your last point: as I said above, *one* lunar mission will require either 8 (SpaceX) or 16-20 (NASA) SH/SS launches. Even with SpaceX's alleged economies with SH/SS, losing that many ships is one hell of an expense. Add onto that the many missions that will be required to test and prove refuelling.
I don't understand why you constantly downgrade the difficulties SpaceX face? I'm not saying they can't do it; I'm not saying they won't do it, especially eventually; just that the challenges they face are far greater than those facing SLS/Orion.
How did the USA manage to overcome all these difficulties in the 60s with no computer technology whatsoever?
They didn't. Guided missiles and their derivatives space rockets all have guidance systems by definition. Even a V-1 had a guidance system. And the Atlas missiles had actual digital systems AFAIAA,
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
I did sign it, Nick, after some hesitation for the reasons you give. In the end though I thought the symbolism was important and my assessment of Ms Vennells was that she might be the kind of person who struggles to do the right thing, even belatedly. Glad to note that in this relatively minor respect, I was wrong.
Avid followers of the scandal will of course fully appreciate that it was definitely not 'all her fault'. It would be horrible for her to be scapegoated, because that would imply that too many others were escaping their due share of the blame.
I'd be lying however if I denied looking forward to hearing her account before the Inquiry, especially in relation to the sacking of Second Sight.
That could be one of the charges he faces down straight there.
I'm sorry but why? You really do focus on the trivia on the side you don't support and ignore the massive problems on the side you do support. Your bias is earth shattering. This is all deflection stuff to delay trials and has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance.
You need something a lot more than them having an affair. I mean it is pretty common for people to form relationships with people they work with. In fact the majority of my ex girlfriends were ones I met through work.
OK so the next test is did either gain inappropriately out of such a relationship which is not an uncommon scandal. So let's for the sake of argument assume the worst and that did happen. That means one or both of them are in trouble for doing so. But what the hell has that got to do with the case against Trump. Nothing whatsoever.
It seems like you want to rescue Trump by muddying the water by supporting those smearing the people trying to bring him to justice and you take great pleasure in it which is unedifying.
Trump should stand trial and be judged on the facts rather than bring lawsuit after lawsuit to try and avoid that trial.
If others have also done wrong they should also be investigated and tried if appropriate.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, although in the (small minority) cases of alleged theft, you'd think questions like "where's the money?" and "where's the evidence that my client ever had the money?" and "why would my client take £30,000 when he/she knows that the subpostmaster has to make their losses good?" or "how did my client ever manage to steal such a huge amount of cash from their SPSO without their returns - i.e. the cash they actually sent back - not being hugely anomalous in relation to their past accounts?"....
...would have been worth asking?
Though presumably there were some genuine cases of embezzlement and false accounting amongst the many untrue cases. Impossible to reliably detect though with what we know now about Horizon.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
There would have been genuine cases of embezzlement. I saw on one of the documentaries the numbers were minuscule prior to, and in comparison to, when the Fujitsu software was installed. Surely someone would have spotted that and it cause a red flag ?
Yes. But there was a kind of Catch22 going on in that the new system was supposed to catch people who'd been getting away with it previously. So its flaw (false evidence of theft) presented as a strength.
I don't know if it's going to be a faithful if not exact adaption (cf Sandman, Childhood's End) or a throw-everything-out-and-stamp-on-the-bits (cf Foundation)
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
That’s true if we’re talking about the risk of getting sacked. It’s less true when we might be talking about fines or jail time.
If you can't do time, don't do crime. I find it really quite easy not to steal, commit perjury etc.
Maybe I just have mad skillz ?
Not relevant to my point. If they have committed a crime they should be dealt with. The point I was responding to implied they should be accountable for any and all crimes committed by their minions.
In this case they participated in the culture of lying to the point of perjury.
In banking, the SOX rules meant that managers were responsible (to the level of criminal sanction) for ensuring that standards were in place and enforced. Much whining ensued in the UK banking industry about bloody American rules.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, although in the (small minority) cases of alleged theft, you'd think questions like "where's the money?" and "where's the evidence that my client ever had the money?" and "why would my client take £30,000 when he/she knows that the subpostmaster has to make their losses good?" or "how did my client ever manage to steal such a huge amount of cash from their SPSO without their returns - i.e. the cash they actually sent back - not being hugely anomalous in relation to their past accounts?"....
...would have been worth asking?
Though presumably there were some genuine cases of embezzlement and false accounting amongst the many untrue cases. Impossible to reliably detect though with what we know now about Horizon.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
There would have been genuine cases of embezzlement. I saw on one of the documentaries the numbers were minuscule prior to, and in comparison to, when the Fujitsu software was installed. Surely someone would have spotted that and it cause a red flag ?
Post Office had always been convinced there was a lot of fraud going on that they didn't know about, so when they installed the computer system and it flagged up a lot more "criminal activity", it proved what they'd suspected all along. That's why no-one thought it was unusual.
Yes, I'm sure this is right. The PO genuinely thought thefts had occurred - they thought this much more likely than faulty Horizon.
But it's also likely that at some point it dawned on them that system failure was possible, more likely even, and then the PO switched into 'cover-its-arse-hope it goes away' mode.
I don't know if it's going to be a faithful if not exact adaption (cf Sandman, Childhood's End) or a throw-everything-out-and-stamp-on-the-bits (cf Foundation)
Foundation gets good in season 2. After a terrible season 1
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
Meanwhile the Government contracts continue to roll in for Fujitsu... Is there noone else that can provide services for the weather, HMRC etc ?
It is the corporate equivalent of the Nu10k. There are only a handful of large players angling for government contracts, which is why Capita and G4S are so often rewarded for failure away from computer projects. And they will be keen to point to Baroness Mome and other PPE contracts and say, look, see what happens when you try a new angle!
It's not so much NU10K, as that, as you say, only a few big outfits bid on these things.
Because the bidding is designed around big suppliers.
Much like the planning system, really.
I think we maybe need a new name because it's not Nu and it's not 10k.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
Pretty easy to do a Hansard search on Starmer and Director Public Prosecutions.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
So it's been mentioned ten times the amount on this one PB thread than by Starmer in the whole of last year? That's a ridiculous imbalance. Really quite disturbing. Either he has to start talking about it a lot more or we need to button it for a while.
Why do you continue to talk about Starmer saying he was Director of Public Prosecutions? Give it a rest - he says it all the time and so does PB.
The point is that he used to a lot. Partly because it was his water wings in the early days of his leadership but partly it emphasised the difference with Johnson.
He doesn't so much now, the stats show it. Indeed, both this week's instances have been opponents looking for skeletons in that particular closet. But first impressions often last. Apart from Rishi's.
Yet another moon landing project that will never happen. They dont have spacesuits or a landing craft! Its amazing that in the 1960s using just pens and papers for design they could develop this equipment, yet with all the modern technology that exists, it can't.
No. The issue is that NASA never learnt how to build anything on a budget.
Right at the start, it was "Waste everything but the" on Apollo. The political support for Apollo was as development funds for the American South. LBJ used the firehouse of NASA money to buy votes for all kinds of things.
So the system was set in stone - NASA projects are used a subsidies to the winners in a political game of poker.
The problem is not technology - it is project structure and management has defeated the attempts to do anything. Hence SLS is a warmed up Shuttle technology and the Orion capsule is a retread of Apollo.
The Altair lander (cancelled) would have cost $40 billion to develop. That was the initial estimate, not the expanded reality that would have occurred.
The reason it was cancelled was that in the pork slicing game, not enough money was going through NASA. So they could only pay for SLS (the rocket) and Orion (the capsule. Even that required farming the service module for Orion out to Europe.
This why, under Obama, the mission was to an asteroid - with a rocket and capsule, you need a destination which doesn't need a lander.
The space suit thing is somewhat similar - but even more fucked up by internal politics in the NASA space suit division. Who have, in effect, blocked new space suits.
In the case of the lander, the current plan is to use the giant rocket that SpaceX is building - which means that the tiny Orion capsule will rendezvous in Lunar orbit with a spaceship the size of a large building. farcical is not the word....
Space suits are under way but will be late. SpaceX are working on their own - they are progressing to an EVA capable suit (tethered) this year. And probably won't stop there.
I both agree with, and disagree with, this.
On the space suits, I believe that every few years NASA would start a new space suit project, only for funding to be cut after a couple of years. Bridenstine said something like "We spent more starting projects to make new spacesuits than it would have cost to stick with the first project."
It's mostly not about NASA not learning to build anything to a budget: it's about political interference. NASA are told what to build, and what to spend building it. Hence the stupidity of SLS's second mobile launcher, which no sane organisation would build. But NASA is forced to, at vast cost.
The biggest problem with Aries is not the SLS - which has flown, albeit at vast cost - or the spacesuits. The main problem is SpaceX's lander. They've still got a massive amount of work to do and, worse, technology to develop and prove. That's where the delay'll come in.
The latest news is that there are issues with the launch escape system for Ares III and new heat shield issues. They had to change the heat shield design after the one test of the system so far.
SLS and Orion were supposed to be zero new tech. But that has proven to be wrong.
The space suit problem is only partly political. There was a weird loop, where counter pressure suit tech would win technology conceptions and then the space suit division would announce that they didn't want that. They even went as far as claiming that the astronauts who took part in the counter pressure suits tests in the 60s were... lying about the results! Similarly, full hard shell hard suits were dismissed.
Yes, they're performing some small changes to SLS/Orion, given what they learnt. That was expected.
But SLS worked pretty much perfectly first time out of the box. It sent the three-quarters-boilerplate Orion capsule around the Moon.
So let's look at what SpaceX need to do, at a broad-brush level:
*) Get SS into orbit. *) Get SS to land. *) Get SH to land. *) Get good enough reliability on SH/SS in order to: *) Launch often enough to get up to 20 (SpaceX say 8, NASA say 16-20) rockets into space in a short timescale, to: *) Test and perfect refuelling a lander. *) Test a landing on the Moon. *) Test launch from the Moon and Earth-orbit rendezvous. *) All the above enough to man-rate the Lunar lander (not SH/SS)
That's a massive workload, including some things that have never been attempted before, even at a small scale. There's a chance that SpaceX get all of that done in the next couple of years; I'd bet against it.
For Orion, alone -
- The heat shield for the next one will be all new. The original design didn't work properly. So it may get its test on the first manned flight. What could go wrong? - The LAS is being reworked - The life support system is in final testing now. It has never been flown. - The navigation system is new. The one flown on the previous test was a temporary fix. - etc
There are major changes between each Orion capsule - all the way to the end of the current production line. This is the problem with having such a hardware poor program - the production models are the test models.
For SLS itself - the upper stage comedy.....
Yes, and those are challenges. But they are orders of magnitude less than the list I gave above.
On the life support, I just remember what DK Brown said about the British nuclear sub program. He reckoned the life-support was more work than the actual nuclear propulsion development.
An this one will have to work first time.
Yes, but the same is true of SpaceX's lunar lander as well. And the same with SS's heat shield as well (which is of a very different type to Dragon).
SpaceX have a series of mahoosive hurdles to straddle before they can send a man down to the lunar surface. For me, the SLS's technical issues pale into relative insignifcance.
The HLS lander contract(s) require demonstrating the pieces on a series of milestones, not a single all up, manned mission.
EDIT: the SS heat shield is not required. If required, the tankers, like the lander, will be expendable.
On your last point: as I said above, *one* lunar mission will require either 8 (SpaceX) or 16-20 (NASA) SH/SS launches. Even with SpaceX's alleged economies with SH/SS, losing that many ships is one hell of an expense. Add onto that the many missions that will be required to test and prove refuelling.
I don't understand why you constantly downgrade the difficulties SpaceX face? I'm not saying they can't do it; I'm not saying they won't do it, especially eventually; just that the challenges they face are far greater than those facing SLS/Orion.
How did the USA manage to overcome all these difficulties in the 60s with no computer technology whatsoever?
They didn't. Guided missiles and their derivatives space rockets all have guidance systems by definition. Even a V-1 had a guidance system. And the Atlas missiles had actual digital systems AFAIAA,
{The D-17B has entered the chat, and sat there, silently computing trajectories.}
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Why don't you.
You're the one making the claim. Substantiate it.
No need. I know I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
I don't know if it's going to be a faithful if not exact adaption (cf Sandman, Childhood's End) or a throw-everything-out-and-stamp-on-the-bits (cf Foundation)
It seems to me a difficult book series to adapt to a visual form. The trailer gave me the impression that it will not be an exact adaption and that may be sensible. The trailer didn't seem to have much of the Cultural Revolution stuff.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
It was Royal Mail which was sold off. Not the Post Office. It is and always has been owned by us the taxpayer.
Treating it as if it were a private company and keeping it at arm's length makes no sense of that leads to no effective oversight at all, which is what happened here, despite the fact that the government has to fund it. And was probably more involved in some of the key decisions than it is letting on.
The arm's length excuse is just that. Day to day operational independence is one thing. But at some point Ministers must have supervisory responsibility, especially if its failings result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer and the worst miscarriage of justice in legal history.
Any normal shareholder holds the management to account. It simply cannot be the case that HMG as shareholder simply lets the management do what they want. That is not public ownership, that is irresponsibility as the very large bill coming the taxpayer's way demonstrates.
What this demonstrates to me is that attacks on Davey, Starmer etc are missing the point. What have the relevant Ministers been doing over the last 15 years as this disaster unfolded? Why were the Board not sacked? What is Kemi doing today?
"Campaigner and former sub-postmaster Chris Trousdale said: 'Paula Vennells should be stripped of her wealth, pension and reputation, just like the sub-postmasters were. The execs' bonuses, their pensions and their pay were based on figures inflated by victims' money. It's disgusting that our money ended up directly in the pockets of bigwigs like Paula Vennells who are now living lives of luxury.'"
The post office situation is unleashing a rather ugly thirst for vengeance.
Ugly ?
That is perfectly reasonable. The campaigner is absolutely right. These people have been through hell, some took their own lives and many lost their livelihoods, homes and reputations and the victims desire for redress is ‘ugly’ not the deeds that precipitated this.
🙄
Ugly? As I said before all they are asking is that Paula Vennells is subjected to what she preached.
The idea that holding people to account for their behaviour is "ugly" is straight out of the NU10K playbook.
Set your watches - in a year or 2 times, Vennells will be giving an interview in the glossy magazines. In her lovely country house, probably. All about how hard the scandal was for her. Made her ill even - to the point of having to check into the posh version of the Priory for a stay, maybe. How it was tough to find a 6 figure job, which was suitable for her. But after a great deal of work, and support from her family & friends, she has finally got back on her feet. Remember, she is the real victim here.
Vennells has already been cancelled, she can't do any work or have any position in public life. But it is too early to jump to the conclusion that she was the actual villain on this occasion. There isn't enough evidence. So what we are seeing is gratuitous public shaming. I think every leader is exposed to essentially the same risk because there are always troubles in any organisation. It poses the question why anyone would become a leader. It is easier to just get in to a position where you can protect yourself and snipe at others. Barristers are the ultimate example of this but they tend to be kept in check by self awareness, cab rank rules, impartiality etc.
I have no idea what was going on with Vennells being a vicar but I don't think it should inevitably be held against her. Maybe the focus on the Horizon disaster is disproportionate, maybe she did other stuff that was positive in the post office. I don't know - but resent the idea that she should be lynched by the mob.
Regarding 'injustices', there are many, many of these. If you look at social workers, they have to make very difficult decisions about putting children in to care or intervention, and often the wrong decisions are made, and sometimes even people die. I don't see this as being a problem with something rotten in public life, it is just a continuous feature of public life, and the structural problem is an inability to manage the information space following the arrival of the internet and social media.
Well said, Darkage.
Vennells certainly shouldn't be lynched by the mob. She is entitled to due process, as we all are. She does have some very awkward questions to answer though. No doubt she is being heavily advised by her lawyers, but if I were here I would definitely go native and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Inquiry.
Whatever she does, her appearance before it will cetainly be box office.
Agreed. I didn't sign the petition as I felt that the focus on one person was a convenient over-simplification - as well as promoting the lynch mob mentality. The public (and apparently Sunak too) have only just become aware of the issue, and the temptation to address it as all Vennells' fault should be resisted.
With a problem of this scale, agreed, it's never the fault of one person. Reason's* Swiss cheese model applies. There need to be errors at multiple stages. How the law viewed computer evidence. How the PO could bring prosecutions. How the PO was set up as a separate company wholly owned by the government. Fujitsu's failure to deliver good code and then their failure to flag problems in the system. Etc. etc. etc. Not that any of this should excuse Vennells and the PO's refusal to face up to the problem or cooperate with the Inquiry. Then there was the thing about the PO handing themselves bonuses for clearing up the problem when they hadn't done any such thing.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
True we don't want to scapegoat individuals but when you step up to be head of an organisation, or indeed any unit, you accept that you are responsible and accountable. It's what the big bucks are for. Or should be.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
There are many guilty parties in the Post Office mess.
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
Are the Tories hamstrung by having to wait for the report?
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
Meanwhile the Government contracts continue to roll in for Fujitsu... Is there noone else that can provide services for the weather, HMRC etc ?
It is the corporate equivalent of the Nu10k. There are only a handful of large players angling for government contracts, which is why Capita and G4S are so often rewarded for failure away from computer projects. And they will be keen to point to Baroness Mome and other PPE contracts and say, look, see what happens when you try a new angle!
It's not so much NU10K, as that, as you say, only a few big outfits bid on these things.
Because the bidding is designed around big suppliers.
Much like the planning system, really.
I think we maybe need a new name because it's not Nu and it's not 10k.
The Big Contractor Only approach to government is a different thing to the impossibility of getting mangers at a certain level to be competent and take responsibility in a meaningful way.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
Pretty easy to do a Hansard search on Starmer and Director Public Prosecutions.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
So it's been mentioned ten times the amount on this one PB thread than by Starmer in the whole of last year? That's a ridiculous imbalance. Really quite disturbing. Either he has to start talking about it a lot more or we need to button it for a while.
Why do you continue to talk about Starmer saying he was Director of Public Prosecutions? Give it a rest - he says it all the time and so does PB.
The point is that he used to a lot. Partly because it was his water wings in the early days of his leadership but partly it emphasised the difference with Johnson.
He doesn't so much now, the stats show it. Indeed, both this week's instances have been opponents looking for skeletons in that particular closet. But first impressions often last. Apart from Rishi's.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
Maybe that affirms my earlier statement about silly comments
It’s a dirty trucks full of dirty tricks smokescreen Big G, not join in with that - better use of us moderates time is asking what are the actual options to help these badly wronged postmasters, are any of the options any good in retrospect after some died as criminals?
I’m not an expert, but I think there’s only the one option, allowing them to appeal on mass. And even that’s a bit limp.
Any changes that “ensures it doesn’t happen again” are themselves smokescreens from genuine help to the wronged people.
Why do governments always drag their heels in addressing these things, like the obvious blood scandals. Is it just like spending billions on re election giveaways and not proper things, or is it genuine legal mine field ☹️
I thank you for your reply and couldn't agree more
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Why don't you.
You're the one making the claim. Substantiate it.
No need. I know I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
Or we can just ignore you on this.
You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I'm saying of course you can.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Why don't you.
You're the one making the claim. Substantiate it.
No need. I know I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
Or we can just ignore you on this.
You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I'm saying of course you can.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Or maybe those making the original assertion could do that. That would be more the norm.
As I said no need. I am right. If you think I'm wrong then prove it.
Pretty easy to do a Hansard search on Starmer and Director Public Prosecutions.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
So it's been mentioned ten times the amount on this one PB thread than by Starmer in the whole of last year? That's a ridiculous imbalance. Really quite disturbing. Either he has to start talking about it a lot more or we need to button it for a while.
Why do you continue to talk about Starmer saying he was Director of Public Prosecutions? Give it a rest - he says it all the time and so does PB.
You're being ignored on this, I'm afraid. Your posts don't count and therefore neither do any replies to them. Which is all good given PB is taking a holiday on SKS DPP mentions until he catches up with us.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
The story so far. A fine gentleman named Peter Lilley commissioned a PFI scheme to install whizzo new computers into the Post Office. Then a git called Keith Donkey held an illegal beer and curry meeting in Fujitsu HQ and spilled a can of Stella and some Vindaloo sauce into the server. Chaos ensued...
If Tory dirty tricks team, all their old media friends and new media trollbots put exactly that story everywhere, it will act as effective cloud of chaff and smokescreen. These smokescreens do work. It disguises who’s been the real power in this land for 14 long years - especially in the last 7 of those years when an absolute scandal here becoming increasingly flipping obvious.
But that’s not the most serious point. History books will say, the main Achilles Hill the Sunak administration died on was over promising. That’s the now all too predictable Rishi reflex - the “whatever it takes”. Are they again over promising - hamstrung by needing the full report and real good workable options that satisfies the anger? Will they do anything that matches their own hype and expectations?
It isn't over-promising. What are people's big complaints in 2024. Travelling by train is an absolute lottery. Getting a GP appointment is like a lottery win. Front line health and schools provision crumbling in front of us. Councils both jacking up council tax by the maximum amount *and* collapsing towards bankruptcy. Some urban and suburban areas being practically a demilitarised zone there is so much crime.
People aren't bothered about the big promises. They want - and expect - the basics to be done properly. Then they look at their tax bill and their rent / mortgage bill and wonder what the hell they are paying for.
The UK is taxed to an absurd level and has services that appear to be bankrupt. And punters have noticed.
And yet another 10 billion increase in the cost of the present HS2 announced this am
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
"The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly."
That depends on what the role of the DPP is. If it is just a senior prosecutor, then you're correct. However if it's about running the DPP *department*, then you're wrong. If he was running the department, I'd expect him to have a fair overview of what was going on, although not detail on every individual case. And I'd expect him to want to be told about any cases - even small ones - that might prove problematic or complex for the department. If only so he can report these upwards to the attorney general and solicitor general (*)
Starmer uses his time as DPP to appear as a Sheriff riding into town getting rid of the bad guys. He constantly refers to it, like Uncle Albert’s ‘During the war’ from Only Fools & Horses, so it’s going to invite scrutiny from his enemies. He also demands that his opponents take full responsibility for anything that goes on under their watch, so it’s only fair he be held to the same standard
It seems the CPS did prosecute 50 odd post masters, so let’s see; maybe it was before his time or below his pay grade
I don't recall ever hearing Starmer refer to his time as DPP. I looked through the transcript of his big New Year's speech and he didn't mention it.
Almost a weekly occurrence on PMQs.
OK. I looked through Hansard at the most recent PMQs. Starmer did not mention being DPP.
One PMQs.
Look through the past 100 and let me know the stats.
Why don't you.
You're the one making the claim. Substantiate it.
No need. I know I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
Or we can just ignore you on this.
You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I'm saying of course you can.
I'm not saying you are wrong as I haven't a clue, but I think the problem today with politics is people saying stuff and don't feel the need to back it up any more. If you state something I don't think it is unreasonable to be expected to substantiate it. You are not Trump after all.
Do defence lawyers in these cases have some blame to share, or were the Post Office's lies such that no credible defence could be given?
Well, not really. The whole point of the story is that, to the extent there were doubts about the reliability of the system, these were not made known (as they should have been under criminal procedure rules) to defence lawyers.
So they could, and I am sure did, press witnesses on reliability of Post Office systems where the defence was that an error had been made. But those giving evidence in most cases very probably believed there wasn't a real risk of error (I don't think the allegation is that everyone in the Post Office IT department knew there was a problem - the issue is who knew what and when as evidence of flaws stacked up).
I think TV crime dramas give a bit of a misleading view of this at times. Defence teams aren't carrying out a parallel investigation. They are poking holes in material that the prosecution MUST provide, which includes relevant material that does NOT support their case. They might call an expert witness, but really only to say "the prosecution expert witness is being overly bullish here - I see the evidence a bit differently". Defences can't really be blamed where evidence they don't know exists but that should have been provided, simply has not been provided.
Yes, although in the (small minority) cases of alleged theft, you'd think questions like "where's the money?" and "where's the evidence that my client ever had the money?" and "why would my client take £30,000 when he/she knows that the subpostmaster has to make their losses good?" or "how did my client ever manage to steal such a huge amount of cash from their SPSO without their returns - i.e. the cash they actually sent back - not being hugely anomalous in relation to their past accounts?"....
...would have been worth asking?
Though presumably there were some genuine cases of embezzlement and false accounting amongst the many untrue cases. Impossible to reliably detect though with what we know now about Horizon.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
There would have been genuine cases of embezzlement. I saw on one of the documentaries the numbers were minuscule prior to, and in comparison to, when the Fujitsu software was installed. Surely someone would have spotted that and it cause a red flag ?
Post Office had always been convinced there was a lot of fraud going on that they didn't know about, so when they installed the computer system and it flagged up a lot more "criminal activity", it proved what they'd suspected all along. That's why no-one thought it was unusual.
Thanks for the explainer (and Kinabalu). I was unaware of that.
If it really is the case that Sunak and the majority of MPs have only just become aware of all this we must regrettably assume that they are not reading pb. My understanding of this scandal is largely a result of coming on here. Cyclefree's threads and the comments of people watching the inquiry can have left people in no doubt of the service to the nation we are providing.
It seems the CPS have confirmed a number of cases involved evidence in Horizon and have written to the defendant's so they can pursue an appeal
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
You forgot to mention the curry and the beer.
The story so far. A fine gentleman named Peter Lilley commissioned a PFI scheme to install whizzo new computers into the Post Office. Then a git called Keith Donkey held an illegal beer and curry meeting in Fujitsu HQ and spilled a can of Stella and some Vindaloo sauce into the server. Chaos ensued...
If Tory dirty tricks team, all their old media friends and new media trollbots put exactly that story everywhere, it will act as effective cloud of chaff and smokescreen. These smokescreens do work. It disguises who’s been the real power in this land for 14 long years - especially in the last 7 of those years when an absolute scandal here becoming increasingly flipping obvious.
But that’s not the most serious point. History books will say, the main Achilles Hill the Sunak administration died on was over promising. That’s the now all too predictable Rishi reflex - the “whatever it takes”. Are they again over promising - hamstrung by needing the full report and real good workable options that satisfies the anger? Will they do anything that matches their own hype and expectations?
It isn't over-promising. What are people's big complaints in 2024. Travelling by train is an absolute lottery. Getting a GP appointment is like a lottery win. Front line health and schools provision crumbling in front of us. Councils both jacking up council tax by the maximum amount *and* collapsing towards bankruptcy. Some urban and suburban areas being practically a demilitarised zone there is so much crime.
People aren't bothered about the big promises. They want - and expect - the basics to be done properly. Then they look at their tax bill and their rent / mortgage bill and wonder what the hell they are paying for.
The UK is taxed to an absurd level and has services that appear to be bankrupt. And punters have noticed.
And yet another 10 billion increase in the cost of the present HS2 announced this am
A large amount of that is because Rishi changed the scope again so things are having to be replanned for the nth time.
I am no fan of his, but I don’t quite follow the attack line against Starmer re: Post Office prosecutions. The idea that the DPP would (or should) have any serious knowledge or involvement in anything but the most complex or high profile cases (and these were not that, at the time) is just silly.
Similar point to be made on Davey. The original sin was trying to commercialise and sell of the Post Office. That having been agreed, the relevant Minister of course had to stay at arms length and accept assurances from the appointed management.
It was Royal Mail which was sold off. Not the Post Office. It is and always has been owned by us the taxpayer.
Treating it as if it were a private company and keeping it at arm's length makes no sense of that leads to no effective oversight at all, which is what happened here, despite the fact that the government has to fund it. And was probably more involved in some of the key decisions than it is letting on.
The arm's length excuse is just that. Day to day operational independence is one thing. But at some point Ministers must have supervisory responsibility, especially if its failings result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer and the worst miscarriage of justice in legal history.
Any normal shareholder holds the management to account. It simply cannot be the case that HMG as shareholder simply lets the management do what they want. That is not public ownership, that is irresponsibility as the very large bill coming the taxpayer's way demonstrates.
What this demonstrates to me is that attacks on Davey, Starmer etc are missing the point. What have the relevant Ministers been doing over the last 15 years as this disaster unfolded? Why were the Board not sacked? What is Kemi doing today?
Holding management to account and actively supervising management are very different things.
A normal shareholder does not take day to day decisions (event very big ones) and does not carry out its own audits (indeed, it wouldn't be allowed to). It may do some of its own research, but would take published management information essentially at face value. It would step in, voting with its feet as a smaller shareholder or more actively for a large one, where reported information indicates disappointing performance.
There is are perfectly reasonable questions on the proper extent of involvement given the importance of Post Office services and fact that this isn't some little investment, and on how that has been discharged by government departments (including but much more widely than individual ministers). But normal shareholders simply are not a board above the board, or actively involved in management. It just isn't how corporate structures are meant to, or do, work.
If it really is the case that Sunak and the majority of MPs have only just become aware of all this we must regrettably assume that they are not reading pb. My understanding of this scandal is largely a result of coming on here. Cyclefree's threads and the comments of people watching the inquiry can have left people in no doubt of the service to the nation we are providing.
I don't know if it's going to be a faithful if not exact adaption (cf Sandman, Childhood's End) or a throw-everything-out-and-stamp-on-the-bits (cf Foundation)
It seems to me a difficult book series to adapt to a visual form. The trailer gave me the impression that it will not be an exact adaption and that may be sensible. The trailer didn't seem to have much of the Cultural Revolution stuff.
Mrs DA's book industry friend tells me that Gideon the Ninth has been optioned. That book, as good as it is, always struck me as being basically unfilmable. It'll be hours on end of far future goths killing each other in cellars.
If it really is the case that Sunak and the majority of MPs have only just become aware of all this we must regrettably assume that they are not reading pb. My understanding of this scandal is largely a result of coming on here. Cyclefree's threads and the comments of people watching the inquiry can have left people in no doubt of the service to the nation we are providing.
A few weeks ago, Frank, too few people knew about the Scandal. Now it feel that too many do.
Whilst I feel a smidgeon of pride that my favorite Site was ahead of the curve, I'm looking forward now to reading more about Leon's holiday travels.
Comments
If a random FTSE company tried to bring a private prosecution then one would expect the CPS to cast a jaundiced eye over the whole thing, not least for reasons of bureaucratic turf protection. At the same time the PO was being given a free pass to prosecute as they saw fit.
Hiding behind technical legalities doesn’t change this.
Urban areas are more Labour, Rural areas are more Conservative, and whilst some of that is explained by age or ethnic composition by no means all of it is. The same is true in pretty much every Western democracy.
In these circumstances will any act passed by Parliament exonerate the CPS prosecutions as well
An aside, Sky are saying it was when Starmer was head of the CPS but I have not seen any other confirmation of that
So the fact that more fraud was being identified, and successful prosecutions brought, could very easily be explained as the system working well rather than failing badly.
Indeed - and this is an incredibly unpopular thing to say just now - whilst the convictions based on the IT are unsafe as the IT was unreliable, and many involved innocent people being convicted - fraud by postmasters has historically been a problem as they are small businesses handling a significant volume of transfer payments so the temptation and opportunity exists. It wasn't and shouldn't be seen as weird that quite a lot of prosecutions get brought in this area.
* Not that Reason deserves all the credit for the idea.
I expect we'll look back on this time and wonder why we didn't see that the Labour majority price was stonking value.
That's informing my betting strategy.
That really is silly. I wish I had deeper pockets.
Besides, those in villages and rural areas see Steve Reed as merely gobby and full of himself not a Champion of their issues this spun journalism implies I think.
Don't like the terms? Don't take the job.
18 occurrences. Two in 2023. He did bang on about it rather more when he was up against Johnson, but... Well, you would, wouldn't you?
Cue a wave of money ...
The scale of the problem require large scale... reform
...and whose idea was it in the first place - almost certainly not Vennells but whether a culprit will ever be identified remains to be seen - plus who devised and implemented such a legally disingenous strategy, the execution of which involved lots of smaller misdeeds along the way? The whole legal side of the company from board down to the individual lawyers should be facing some hard questions.
I doubt we'll see Vennells until high summer.
Instead the cash is being used to fill potholes in London and fund a possible cut in inheritance tax. It's pathetic.
Basic question. The remaining handful of PB Tories are very observant of the specks of dust in Starmer's eye as potential reasons why people shouldn't vote Labour. But seem resolutely blind to the massive Jewson shop of planks in their own eyes as to why people have resolved not to vote Tory.
There is actually a Democrat primary in New Hampshire on the same day as the Republican one. The DNC has hotly contested the scheduling, Biden isn't on the ballot (although there is a write-in campaign), and the status of delegates elected at the convention is undecided.
Quite a few Democrats might skip it for the Republican primary (and many more simply won't bother). But it isn't accurate that, when they go to the polling station, they won't have the option of voting in the Democrat primary for New Hampshire instead.
The big swings to Lib Dems in deep rural byelections started in the Boris era, epitomised by both North Shropshire and Tiverton and Honiton being triggered by sleaze.
Not to everyone’s taste, I admit. If you hate urban filth, hedonism, pollution, crowds, booze, squalor, weirdness, chaos and people boiling cow’s brains in metal buckets by the road then you won’t like it. I love it
Scratch beneath the “we have a solution, announcement imminent” promises, Tory government seem to think they need to wait for the report themselves. They will of course announce something, but will it meet even their own hype and expectations?
We're at the point where even holding taxes steady is going to require more cuts to public spending.
And everyone is happy with that, as long as the things they use don't get withdrawn or rendered hopelessly rubbish.
Maybe I just have mad skillz ?
If Trump gets disqualified (17% chance per Polymarket) and still gets the most delegates (likely) he's not going go off and play golf until they come to take him to jail, he's going to run a proxy. Preferably someone with the same name, and no independent political career. It's either Ivanka or Donald Jr and if he wants to win he'll pick Ivanka.
Fani Willis subpoenaed to testify whether she had an affair with one of Trump's special prosecutors.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/fani-willis-prosecutor-in-trump-georgia-case-subpoenaed-to-testify-in-colleagues-divorce-c8e3fda5?st=w8b14idzjjsmsio&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
That could be one of the charges he faces down straight there.
A bit like the WW1 "shot at dawn" who got a blanket pardon, despite a handful of murderers and rapists amongst the shell-shocked.
Then it doesn't matter. They will win each and every one.
It’s got all the chaotic optimistic buzz of Thai cities - especially Bangkok - about 40 years ago before they got all fat and lazy and fucked with 7-11s
But that’s not the most serious point. History books will say, the main Achilles Hill the Sunak administration died on was over promising. That’s the now all too predictable Rishi reflex - the “whatever it takes”. Are they again over promising - hamstrung by needing the full report and real good workable options that satisfies the anger? Will they do anything that matches their own hype and expectations?
But for me, on the betting, it's all about Donald Trump really. I have a big short on him for the WH. Every other realistic outcome is green for me.
Because the bidding is designed around big suppliers.
Much like the planning system, really.
People aren't bothered about the big promises. They want - and expect - the basics to be done properly. Then they look at their tax bill and their rent / mortgage bill and wonder what the hell they are paying for.
The UK is taxed to an absurd level and has services that appear to be bankrupt. And punters have noticed.
I’m not an expert, but I think there’s only the one option, allowing them to appeal on mass. And even that’s a bit limp.
Any changes that “ensures it doesn’t happen again” are themselves smokescreens from genuine help to the wronged people.
Why do governments always drag their heels in addressing these things, like the obvious blood scandals. Is it just like spending billions on re election giveaways and not proper things, or is it genuine legal mine field ☹️
Treating it as if it were a private company and keeping it at arm's length makes no sense of that leads to no effective oversight at all, which is what happened here, despite the fact that the government has to fund it. And was probably more involved in some of the key decisions than it is letting on.
The arm's length excuse is just that. Day to day operational independence is one thing. But at some point Ministers must have supervisory responsibility, especially if its failings result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer and the worst miscarriage of justice in legal history.
" Royal Mail Legal Services, the successor to the Post Office Solicitor’s Office continues to be
recognized by the Ministry of Justice as a private prosecutor and prosecutes on Royal Mail’s
account in England and Wales."
In England and Wales it is ultimately government ministers (i.e. the Lord Chancellor, currently Alex Chalk) who have allowed the Post Office to act as a private prosecutor, not only in the past but up to this day. In 2013, the abuse of the Post Office's prosecuting powers wasn't on the radar, as such abuse of that position was only gradually exposed by the various investigations and legal challenges over the past decade. Yet it's being claimed that the DPP who left office in 2013 should have somehow persuaded the then Lord Chancellor (Chris Grayling in 2013, after Ken Clarke and before him Jack Straw) that he should take over those prosecuting arrangements in the absence of any evidence then of abuse of the Post Office's prosecuting powers. That claim is made despite the fact that even in 2024 Conservative ministers have not yet to made any move to consider the removal of the ability of the Post Office to bring private prosecutions. So it's a risible Conservative political stunt to distract attention, and while the Telegraph and the PB Tories may choose to obsess about Starmer's role up to 2013, they are whistling in the wind.
The question that is getting traction is the one asking why it has taken an ITV drama that revealed absolutely nothing new to finally prompt the government to act to speed up a resolution of the victims' claims, after nearly a decade of Conservative governments during which most of the key facts were already known early on and during which they were content for the matter to pootle along in the long grass.
Avid followers of the scandal will of course fully appreciate that it was definitely not 'all her fault'. It would be horrible for her to be scapegoated, because that would imply that too many others were escaping their due share of the blame.
I'd be lying however if I denied looking forward to hearing her account before the Inquiry, especially in relation to the sacking of Second Sight.
You need something a lot more than them having an affair. I mean it is pretty common for people to form relationships with people they work with. In fact the majority of my ex girlfriends were ones I met through work.
OK so the next test is did either gain inappropriately out of such a relationship which is not an uncommon scandal. So let's for the sake of argument assume the worst and that did happen. That means one or both of them are in trouble for doing so. But what the hell has that got to do with the case against Trump. Nothing whatsoever.
It seems like you want to rescue Trump by muddying the water by supporting those smearing the people trying to bring him to justice and you take great pleasure in it which is unedifying.
Trump should stand trial and be judged on the facts rather than bring lawsuit after lawsuit to try and avoid that trial.
If others have also done wrong they should also be investigated and tried if appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mogSbMD6EcY
I don't know if it's going to be a faithful if not exact adaption (cf Sandman, Childhood's End) or a throw-everything-out-and-stamp-on-the-bits (cf Foundation)
In banking, the SOX rules meant that managers were responsible (to the level of criminal sanction) for ensuring that standards were in place and enforced. Much whining ensued in the UK banking industry about bloody American rules.
But it made them pay some fucking attention.
But it's also likely that at some point it dawned on them that system failure was possible, more likely even, and then the PO switched into 'cover-its-arse-hope it goes away' mode.
He doesn't so much now, the stats show it. Indeed, both this week's instances have been opponents looking for skeletons in that particular closet. But first impressions often last. Apart from Rishi's.
What this demonstrates to me is that attacks on Davey, Starmer etc are missing the point. What have the relevant Ministers been doing over the last 15 years as this disaster unfolded? Why were the Board not sacked? What is Kemi doing today?
Nope.
Anyway...
@isam to please note as well.
👍
A normal shareholder does not take day to day decisions (event very big ones) and does not carry out its own audits (indeed, it wouldn't be allowed to). It may do some of its own research, but would take published management information essentially at face value. It would step in, voting with its feet as a smaller shareholder or more actively for a large one, where reported information indicates disappointing performance.
There is are perfectly reasonable questions on the proper extent of involvement given the importance of Post Office services and fact that this isn't some little investment, and on how that has been discharged by government departments (including but much more widely than individual ministers). But normal shareholders simply are not a board above the board, or actively involved in management. It just isn't how corporate structures are meant to, or do, work.
The Wikipedia page was created in March 2015, nearly 8 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Post_Office_scandal&oldid=653980652
Whilst I feel a smidgeon of pride that my favorite Site was ahead of the curve, I'm looking forward now to reading more about Leon's holiday travels.