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.
There is a big difference I think between being a shareholder of a public quoted company and being the 100% shareholder of a company. I have bugger all influence over Rolls Royce with my 700 odd shares, but I ran the company I owned 100% of the shares in. The Government (or rather the civil servants) could take as much or as little interest in the Post Office as they liked.
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.
Thank you for explaining but I'm not 100% sure you have gone through the relevant PB Protocols for ignoring posts. A casual observer might misunderestimate your actions. Hence I would be grateful if when you talk about how often SKS mentions his time as DPP you could somehow mark your posts accordingly.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for leading on this issue and for bravely taking the case of many people in the postal sector to the management. From his discussions with the senior management of the Post Office, is there any sign that it now recognises that it made mistakes? Is there any willingness on its part to recognise that at least some of those people are completely innocent and deserve an apology and compensation for the way that their lives and businesses have been wrecked?
Mr Arbuthnot: That is a very difficult question to answer, because the Post Office pleads secrecy. It will not tell us what is happening in the mediation scheme. We asked in July how the mediation scheme was going, but it refused to tell Members of Parliament because it was all confidential.
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.
What are the odds that HS2 Lite (Sunak edition) ends up costing more than the real thing would have?
And that's before doing something about all the other transport issues that the lopped off bits of HS2 was planned to solve.
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.
This is slightly arse about face. I stated a transparent truth and everyone else said "oh no it's not". As I am correct in this it is for them to prove otherwise.
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?
No doubt Kemi is planning her leadership bid today.
And @bondegezou can you stop effing well "liking" every post which, however tangentially, agrees with your opinion. Mistaken as it is. Just write a post ffs.
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.
This is slightly arse about face. I stated a transparent truth and everyone else said "oh no it's not". As I am correct in this it is for them to prove otherwise.
Your welcome.
LOL. I loved how you inserted a deliberate error ("Your welcome" rather than "You're welcome") to give us the nod that this whole shtick about being right was a joke.
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.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
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?
I broadly agree although, as I've mentioned, looking for unusual patterns may not have helped in this case as one of the key reasons for introducing the system was to address what was a pretty widely acknowledged issue of fraud in post offices.
Some people have taken the simplistic approach that "surely someone noticed there was an increase in cases?" But that wasn't odd as part of the point was to detect a lot more cases. Indeed, at the time, simply looking at the numbers of cases would suggest it was money pretty well spent.
It may be that the unusual patterns were something else other than sheer numbers of cases though - that's fair enough, but I don't know what that might have been.
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.
Thank you for explaining but I'm not 100% sure you have gone through the relevant PB Protocols for ignoring posts. A casual observer might misunderestimate your actions. Hence I would be grateful if when you talk about how often SKS mentions his time as DPP you could somehow mark your posts accordingly.
This argument about how many times Starmer mentions being the DPP at PMQs reminds of a scene in a Woody Allen film. Allen's character and his wife are seeing a therapist. When asked "how often do you have sex?" He replies "hardly ever", while she replies "all the time". But they both agree it is twice a week.
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.
Far future lesbian necromancer goths if you please.
Anyway, sounds like a good time to me. Where do I sign up?
(GtN is great, but also completely mad. The sequels have been ... slower burns. Yes, I would like my book to start with 280 pages where all the plot happens to background characters off the page & is obliquely referred to in passing comments they make to the oblivious PoV character, that sounds like a great time. Please give me more.)
If I were a subpostmaster now I would be trousering thousands and telling the Post Office to fuck off. It's not like they are going to dare do anything about it.
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.
Of course most MPs new about the Post Office scandal long before it was a tv drama. They just didn't care about it, or at least not care enough about it to spend time resolving it rather than their own games of musical chairs and mutual backstabbing.
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.
Sounds like a good time to me. Where do I sign up?
(GtN is great, but also completely mad. The sequels have been ... slower burns. Yes, I would like my book to start with 280 pages where all the plot happens to background characters off the page & is obliquely referred to in passing comments they make to the oblivious PoV character, that sounds like a great time. Please give me more.)
Have you tried Nabokov's "Pale Fire", in which the story has to be inferred from the footnotes to an epic poem?
If I were a subpostmaster now I would be trousering thousands and telling the Post Office to fuck off. It's not like they are going to dare do anything about it.
From what I hear, many managers at the PO still think their SPMs are crooks.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
If I were a subpostmaster now I would be trousering thousands and telling the Post Office to fuck off. It's not like they are going to dare do anything about it.
From what I hear, many managers at the PO still think their SPMs are crooks.
Of course, the Horizon system was originally developed because the Conservative government thought all benefit claimants were crooks, which they still think today.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
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.
Wait to they get to the sequels.
Also I look forward to them trying to promote the 9th sequel when the other movies never got released
Lee Anderson unequivocally attack on Davey demanding his resignation
It was interesting Sunak did not rise to the bait
Ah, OK.
Attacks on Ed Davey seem to me to be missing the point. The fact that he was post office minister doesn't really single him out. There've been lots of those, many of them just as unsympathetic as Ed Davey was. If they're going after him they should focus on the money he made as a consultant to the Post Office's lawyers. But they don't appear to be doing so.
If I were a subpostmaster now I would be trousering thousands and telling the Post Office to fuck off. It's not like they are going to dare do anything about it.
From what I hear, many managers at the PO still think their SPMs are crooks.
I think there is often a thing in human nature that we expect others to be the same as us. There is a technical manager at my Uni who refuses to allow his team to work flexibly, even though it would be beneficial to all (matches up better with work load and better for mental health etc). I am convinced it is because he doesn't trust the staff not to abuse the flexible working because he IS allowed to work flexibly, and seems to abuse it all the time...
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
That would be the New Labour minister Peter Lilley in 1994/5?
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.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
To be honest, DA, I think there is no shortage of other organisations worthy of the TV investigation treatment.
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
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.
Wait to they get to the sequels.
Also I look forward to them trying to promote the 9th sequel when the other movies never got released
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.
Wait to they get to the sequels.
Also I look forward to them trying to promote the 9th sequel when the other movies never got released
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Sunak seems obsessed by "Labour doesn't have a plan". I know that there is some polling showing that people aren't clear what Labour would do. But that won't stick as the plans get detailed and talked about.
So as a short term tactical play, maybe. But it doesn't seem to be just short term. I think that's the Tory campaign. Oh dear...
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.
There is a big difference I think between being a shareholder of a public quoted company and being the 100% shareholder of a company. I have bugger all influence over Rolls Royce with my 700 odd shares, but I ran the company I owned 100% of the shares in. The Government (or rather the civil servants) could take as much or as little interest in the Post Office as they liked.
I agree that the grandma with a handful of privatisation shares, the Pru with millions of pension funds invested, and someone who is sole shareholder with a strategic interest are different.
However, I think you're making an analogy with a one man band (or relatively small business) with a corporate structure ("I ran the company"), and that isn't valid. Clearly, there are relatively small businesses where the sole shareholder is the director and the manager. But there are also very large business where the sole shareholder appoints a board, the board appoint senior managers, the senior managers appoint juniors, the juniors appoint their teams and so on. That is delegation. Once you do that, you own the company, but don't and can't "run" the company. You can argue about the appropriate level of involvement by the sole shareholder - but that shareholder simply cannot be involved in all aspects, has to allow important decisions to be made without reference to him, and has to give a level of credence to information provided to him.
None of that is to put government in the clear on this particular issue. But I don't think your analogy works.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
That would be the New Labour minister Peter Lilley in 1994/5?
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 surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Nah, that's not gonna wash. You can't just wave away New Labour's 13 years in office from 1997 to 2010, just because you don't want this to become an obstacle to their re-election.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
Sunak seems obsessed by "Labour doesn't have a plan". I know that there is some polling showing that people aren't clear what Labour would do. But that won't stick as the plans get detailed and talked about.
So as a short term tactical play, maybe. But it doesn't seem to be just short term. I think that's the Tory campaign. Oh dear...
Labour don't have a plan that they have told us about. And they won't until the election and even then expect the thinnest manifesto in history. "We are not the Tories" ought to cover 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.
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.
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.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
To be honest, DA, I think there is no shortage of other organisations worthy of the TV investigation treatment.
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
And the Post Office too. Last week. A simple Christmas card they’ve knocked the stamp off, and I had to pay five pounds before they handed it to me. Is that legal, or fraud?
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
That would be the New Labour minister Peter Lilley in 1994/5?
No, that was the Pathway project.
The Horizon system was commissioned and pushed out by New Labour.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
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.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
To be honest, DA, I think there is no shortage of other organisations worthy of the TV investigation treatment.
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
You could start here. A longer running sore than the Post Office mess, which has destroyed more lives - and killed many, many more.
Sunak seems obsessed by "Labour doesn't have a plan". I know that there is some polling showing that people aren't clear what Labour would do. But that won't stick as the plans get detailed and talked about.
So as a short term tactical play, maybe. But it doesn't seem to be just short term. I think that's the Tory campaign. Oh dear...
Labour don't have a plan that they have told us about. And they won't until the election and even then expect the thinnest manifesto in history. "We are not the Tories" ought to cover it.
I understand there maybe two more fiscal events this year with the March budget but also an Autumn statement, which would indicate the next GE will be in November or even December which does raise the question just when any manifesto will emege and when
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
The reality is that Horizon was a perfectly reasonable idea that used (mostly) the most reliable basic technologies of the time. Unfortunately it was implemented by clowns who couldn’t program their way out of a paper bag half the time & then management on both sides decided to cover up all the flaws instead of accepting that their systems might not be 100% reliable and you know the rest of the story.
Politicians are definitely responsible for failed to get a grip on the compensation scheme, which should have been sorted out a decade ago. But we can say exactly the same about the compensation for contaminated blood recipients. It’s a continuing pattern of behaviour that probably originates with the Treasury demanding that compensation come out of individual departmental budgets.
Sunak seems obsessed by "Labour doesn't have a plan". I know that there is some polling showing that people aren't clear what Labour would do. But that won't stick as the plans get detailed and talked about.
So as a short term tactical play, maybe. But it doesn't seem to be just short term. I think that's the Tory campaign. Oh dear...
It's the level of flexibility Sunak can manage. It's like when Fr Jack was coached to say "That would be an ecumenical matter."
Whatever his talents, Sunak is hopelessly undercooked as a politician. Starmer isn't great, but he does have relevant skills from his previous career.
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.
Lee Anderson unequivocally attack on Davey demanding his resignation
It was interesting Sunak did not rise to the bait
Ah, OK.
Attacks on Ed Davey seem to me to be missing the point. The fact that he was post office minister doesn't really single him out. There've been lots of those, many of them just as unsympathetic as Ed Davey was. If they're going after him they should focus on the money he made as a consultant to the Post Office's lawyers. But they don't appear to be doing so.
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.
Well yes - although I wouldn't go quite that far. I always know what Leon is doing without him posting about it.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Nah, that's not gonna wash. You can't just wave away New Labour's 13 years in office from 1997 to 2010, just because you don't want this to become an obstacle to their re-election.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
They're up to their necks in it.
I’m not absolving Labour of any guilt. They absolutely fucked up over this. They did not, however, commission the system originally.
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.
This is slightly arse about face. I stated a transparent truth and everyone else said "oh no it's not". As I am correct in this it is for them to prove otherwise.
Your welcome.
LOL. I loved how you inserted a deliberate error ("Your welcome" rather than "You're welcome") to give us the nod that this whole shtick about being right was a joke.
If I were a subpostmaster now I would be trousering thousands and telling the Post Office to fuck off. It's not like they are going to dare do anything about it.
That’s hardly the spirit that put great into Great Britain is it 😠
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
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.
"Almost a weekly occurrence at PMQs"
Nope.
Anyway...
Ironically Starmer has just said it again today.
Just my luck...
I think he just did it to wind up Topping.
Well we do believe that the 'powers that be' (and presumably 'the powers that WANT to be') read PB...
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Nah, that's not gonna wash. You can't just wave away New Labour's 13 years in office from 1997 to 2010, just because you don't want this to become an obstacle to their re-election.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
They're up to their necks in it.
No one is absolving them but you said they "commissioned" it. You were wrong. The Tories commissioned it and for the last 13 years have done nothing about it despite the issues being well known. Politicians may not read PB but many read Private Eye. This is a cross-party issue. The desperation of PB Tories on here to paint the state of the country as having absolutely nothing to do with the party in government for the last 13 years is a sight to behold.
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.
"Almost a weekly occurrence at PMQs"
Nope.
Anyway...
Ironically Starmer has just said it again today.
Just my luck...
I think he just did it to wind up Topping.
Well we do believe that the 'powers that be' (and presumably 'the powers that WANT to be') read PB...
What else did you think they look at on their mobiles ?
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.
You’re missing the point but also (sort of) agreeing with me. Go back to the start of all this and you’ll see there’s a reason the Post Office was spun off like that: there was a clear assumption it too would go out the door, though possibly in a different way (like a mutual).
That’s the original sin here. A half decision to almost do something, that floated along for years and left governance structures in limbo. It was half arms length but taking a direction from its only share holder, that presumably said “reduce fraud to zero and simplify the business so we can do something with it”.
This is, of course, why all arms length bodies in Government are bad ideas unless they are truly spun off (though even then, we see in utilities and railways that the Government will always be the final backstop in some sectors). The biggest example being NHS England. Ministers like to think they have got rid of responsibility and accountability, but in extremis, like a boomerang it always comes back. The trouble is you don’t have powers to do anything about actually addressing the problems, so things get even worse.
Of course the real tragedy of the Post Office and Royal Mail is that with a bit of creativity and vision from about 2000, rather than just bemoaning the death of the letter, they could have ridden the wave of online shopping, and the death of the high street, and made billions.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
Its apolitical. Covers governments of all 3 parties over the last 20 years.
To be pedantic, that doesn't make it "apolitical". It makes it politically unwise to go in feet first over it.
Obviously you can’t go on the attack on this issue, but there are some PMQs where you have to ask questions in a consensual way on the big issue of the moment. I think it was a mistake not to do so (not that it will matter in any meaningful way).
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
Its apolitical. Covers governments of all 3 parties over the last 20 years.
To be pedantic, that doesn't make it "apolitical". It makes it politically unwise to go in feet first over it.
Obviously you can’t go on the attack on this issue, but there are some PMQs where you have to ask questions in a consensual way on the big issue of the moment. I think it was a mistake not to do so (not that it will matter in any meaningful way).
The government is making a statement this afternoon. There's not much in the way of useful questions to be asked before 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.
A few weeks ago, Frank, too few people knew about the Scandal. Now it feel that too many do.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
To be honest, DA, I think there is no shortage of other organisations worthy of the TV investigation treatment.
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
You could start here. A longer running sore than the Post Office mess, which has destroyed more lives - and killed many, many more.
I guess the delay is for the same reason as for the post office - the implications of admitting any fault are so enormous that it's best to just pass the problem onto your successor.
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.
Exactly. In fact the role of a shareholder is to trust the Board (or vote to replace it if it doesn’t), and be guided in that by seeing what the auditors think. It is not to second guess. And that becomes even more important when, as here, you’re the only shareholder and you’re not operating within that sort of structure. It’s super easy to become a shadow director by mistake and every civil servant involved will have been briefed to avoid 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.
A few weeks ago, Frank, too few people knew about the Scandal. Now it feel that too many do.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
To be honest, DA, I think there is no shortage of other organisations worthy of the TV investigation treatment.
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
There's a three parter in this.
'Eddie Izzard IS **********2!!!'
'I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... we arrived c 9.30pm'
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Though on PB "The Herd" consisted of Tory paranoiacs.
I see we are back to blaming "the last Labour Government" for the failure of the Tories now. This simply will not wash with the public, who are fed up and tired of this country falling apart.
I note Sadiq Khan managed to stop the potential London strike by doing the amazing thing of talking to the unions. He's still managed to achieve far fewer days lost to strike action than that famous Labour mayor Boris Something, so this is clearly a sign of the disaster to come from SKS's Labour Government.
I think at this point certain people are worried that SKS might actually do a good job and put the Tories out of office for a decade. At the moment I would welcome this outcome so the Tories can go back to being sensible and moderate and I might consider voting for them again as I have in the past.
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.
"Almost a weekly occurrence at PMQs"
Nope.
Anyway...
Ironically Starmer has just said it again today.
Just my luck...
I think he just did it to wind up Topping.
Can't bloody well move without him rolling it out again.
Just awful figures for the Tories. Nothing they do seems to make any difference.
Yes. Let’s talk polling, and basically arn’t they surprising? The Tories have been the busiest party over Christmas, talking things up, not least how quickly they have brought forward and delivered a real NI tax cut, putting real money back in peoples pay packets.
So why are they going backward in the New Year polling?
They must be just a shade over 25% now on poll of poll averages?
When does swing back begin? When do they get a tax cut bounce?
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
That would be the New Labour minister Peter Lilley in 1994/5?
No, that was the Pathway project.
The Horizon system was commissioned and pushed out by New Labour.
You are a stranger to this concept of "truth" are you not @Casino_Royale You are either being disingenuous or plain ignorant. Everyone knows that Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994. During the Major Government. You owe a lot of people on here an abject apology for your arrogant behaviour on here. Here's the relevant transcript from the enquiry.
That Peter Lilley commissioned it is confirmed at the 19th page of the PDF file from the PO Inquiry in this link below, pages numbered 73 and 74
"At a meeting of the Post Office Board on 7 May 1996,authority was granted to the Post Office Counter to enter into contracts with the Benefits Agency and Pathway, subject to the resolution of a funding issue affecting the Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland). Having approved the selection of Pathway and having obtained authority from the Treasury for funding of the contract, Peter Lilley, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, made a public announcement on 15 May 1996 confirming the selection of Pathway as the chosen contractor to finance, supply and operate the new automated system for Post Office transactions and benefit payments"
...
"Shortly after the contract was awarded, ICL purchased the shares which De la Rue and Girobank owned in Pathway, and changed the company's name to ICL Pathway Limited. And I will, from now on, refer to the relevant company as the "ICL Pathway".
I don't understand how anyone can be so blinkered and partisan on such an important issue.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Nah, that's not gonna wash. You can't just wave away New Labour's 13 years in office from 1997 to 2010, just because you don't want this to become an obstacle to their re-election.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
They're up to their necks in it.
I’m not absolving Labour of any guilt. They absolutely fucked up over this. They did not, however, commission the system originally.
But, they did commission the system actually. And then did nothing about any of the problems for years.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
That would be the New Labour minister Peter Lilley in 1994/5?
No, that was the Pathway project.
The Horizon system was commissioned and pushed out by New Labour.
I don't understand how anyone can be so blinkered and partisan on such an important issue.
Indeed, why don't you enlighten us?
You're possibly the angriest and most partisan poster on this board, and you're only tolerated because you have a mildly funny name.
Watch yourself, or you might give yourself a coronary.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
Save that your "facts" are, as usual, ignorance or lies. The Tories commissioned Pathway, the shares in the joint venture company Girobank and De La Rue set up were bought by ICL, which was owned by Fujitsu, who introduced Horizon. Yes, Labour ran it for 13 years, so have questions to answer, but the Tory elite have run it for the last 13. Now the smelly oiks are getting their own back you can't handle it.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Nah, that's not gonna wash. You can't just wave away New Labour's 13 years in office from 1997 to 2010, just because you don't want this to become an obstacle to their re-election.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
They're up to their necks in it.
No one is absolving them but you said they "commissioned" it. You were wrong. The Tories commissioned it and for the last 13 years have done nothing about it despite the issues being well known. Politicians may not read PB but many read Private Eye. This is a cross-party issue. The desperation of PB Tories on here to paint the state of the country as having absolutely nothing to do with the party in government for the last 13 years is a sight to behold.
No. New Labour rescoped and commissioned it as the Horizon system once they took office. Before then it was just a procurement that was subject to review.
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.
The real problem is the amount similar TV shows it's going to spawn. Every historic injustice characterised by egregious power asymmetry is now going to be produced in a similar vein. Eddie Marsan and that short arse with the upside down face who was in the Post Office one are going to be filming them 24/7.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
To be honest, DA, I think there is no shortage of other organisations worthy of the TV investigation treatment.
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
You could start here. A longer running sore than the Post Office mess, which has destroyed more lives - and killed many, many more.
I guess the delay is for the same reason as for the post office - the implications of admitting any fault are so enormous that it's best to just pass the problem onto your successor.
Though in the blood case, delay culled the numbers more effectively, as it killed off a fair proportion of the victims every year. And still does.
Having had an operation in the early 80s which required multiple units of blood, I'm moderately lucky not to have been one of them.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Nah, reflects our sheep-like regulars who are desperate to scrub any responsibility of Labour from the record.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
That would be the New Labour minister Peter Lilley in 1994/5?
No, that was the Pathway project.
The Horizon system was commissioned and pushed out by New Labour.
I don't understand how anyone can be so blinkered and partisan on such an important issue.
Indeed, why don't you enlighten us?
You're possibly the angriest and most partisan poster on this board, and you're only tolerated because you have a mildly funny name.
Watch yourself, or you might give yourself a coronary.
"Partisan". Yeah, right. You can't even correctly tell me how I voted in the last three elections. Reverting to form you lash out because you have been proved wrong. Break the habit of a lifetime and admit it will you?
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Nah, reflects our sheep-like regulars who are desperate to scrub any responsibility of Labour from the record.
There's plenty on here. We all know their names.
Stop using sheep as term of abuse. They are actually very intelligent.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Nah, reflects our sheep-like regulars who are desperate to scrub any responsibility of Labour from the record.
There's plenty on here. We all know their names.
Stop using sheep as term of abuse. They are actually very intelligent.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Nah, that's not gonna wash. You can't just wave away New Labour's 13 years in office from 1997 to 2010, just because you don't want this to become an obstacle to their re-election.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
They're up to their necks in it.
I’m not absolving Labour of any guilt. They absolutely fucked up over this. They did not, however, commission the system originally.
But, they did commission the system actually. And then did nothing about any of the problems for years.
No. They didn't. As I have pointed out repeatedly.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Nah, reflects our sheep-like regulars who are desperate to scrub any responsibility of Labour from the record.
There's plenty on here. We all know their names.
Stop using sheep as term of abuse. They are actually very intelligent.
Anyone who has anything to do with sheep will confirm that all they do is try to find ways to die. Often with great success. Intelligent they are not.
Just awful figures for the Tories. Nothing they do seems to make any difference.
Yes. Let’s talk polling, and basically arn’t they surprising? The Tories have been the busiest party over Christmas, talking things up, not least how quickly they have brought forward and delivered a real NI tax cut, putting real money back in peoples pay packets.
So why are they going backward in the New Year polling?
They must be just a shade over 25% now on poll of poll averages?
When does swing back begin? When do they get a tax cut bounce?
The problem is that for too many of their potential voters, the NI cut is pretty cold comfort next to the Truss-induced mortgage hikes, and energy bills too. Westminster memory is short but hundreds of thousands are living with paying an unexpected extra £200+ per month for the foreseeable. Most homeowners, I'd imagine, will still net out negative from this. There is also lack of pay growth for many next to rising costs.
And even for the more comfortably-situated, how many of them are also the parents of the kids who can't get a mortgage and stuck in an expensive rental system etc.; plus I guess tax cuts could really just feel irresponsible especially against a backdrop of strikes, collapsing schools, rubbish trains, government incompetence and sleaze.
Just awful figures for the Tories. Nothing they do seems to make any difference.
Yes. Let’s talk polling, and basically arn’t they surprising? The Tories have been the busiest party over Christmas, talking things up, not least how quickly they have brought forward and delivered a real NI tax cut, putting real money back in peoples pay packets.
So why are they going backward in the New Year polling?
They must be just a shade over 25% now on poll of poll averages?
When does swing back begin? When do they get a tax cut bounce?
Point of order - this is not true. The NI cut reduces the size of the tax increase.
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.
Wait to they get to the sequels.
Also I look forward to them trying to promote the 9th sequel when the other movies never got released
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Nah, reflects our sheep-like regulars who are desperate to scrub any responsibility of Labour from the record.
There's plenty on here. We all know their names.
There is a time-value element to this which is quite important. The evidence for a huge miscarriage of justice has grown over time, as have the efforts to conceal it.
Blaming the Tories for commissioning it in the 90s is silly. Blaming the Tories for awarding Vennels a CBE in 2019 , along with Cabinet Office and NHS jobs... seems fair to me.
If I were a subpostmaster now I would be trousering thousands and telling the Post Office to fuck off. It's not like they are going to dare do anything about it.
From what I hear, many managers at the PO still think their SPMs are crooks.
Yes, this was apparent in at least one of the inquiry testimonies.
In his blog, Nick Wallis, even now, lists SPM theft as one of 14 possibilities of where the money went (below) but points out that the motive of the SPMs is hard to grasp given they had to make good any shortfall.
Comments
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2014-12-17/debates/14121741000002/PostOfficeMediationScheme
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for leading on this issue and for bravely taking the case of many people in the postal sector to the management. From his discussions with the senior management of the Post Office, is there any sign that it now recognises that it made mistakes? Is there any willingness on its part to recognise that at least some of those people are completely innocent and deserve an apology and compensation for the way that their lives and businesses have been wrecked?
Mr Arbuthnot: That is a very difficult question to answer, because the Post Office pleads secrecy. It will not tell us what is happening in the mediation scheme. We asked in July how the mediation scheme was going, but it refused to tell Members of Parliament because it was all confidential.
And that's before doing something about all the other transport issues that the lopped off bits of HS2 was planned to solve.
Your welcome.
Next, after Coronation Street, it's episode three of The Naked Rambler vs The Home Office starring Lee Mack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSThzRcgKz0
Some people have taken the simplistic approach that "surely someone noticed there was an increase in cases?" But that wasn't odd as part of the point was to detect a lot more cases. Indeed, at the time, simply looking at the numbers of cases would suggest it was money pretty well spent.
It may be that the unusual patterns were something else other than sheer numbers of cases though - that's fair enough, but I don't know what that might have been.
Allen's character and his wife are seeing a therapist.
When asked "how often do you have sex?"
He replies "hardly ever", while she replies "all the time".
But they both agree it is twice a week.
Anyway, sounds like a good time to me. Where do I sign up?
(GtN is great, but also completely mad. The sequels have been ... slower burns. Yes, I would like my book to start with 280 pages where all the plot happens to background characters off the page & is obliquely referred to in passing comments they make to the oblivious PoV character, that sounds like a great time. Please give me more.)
It was interesting Sunak did not rise to the bait
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Maybe because this started under New Labour if I have understood the timescales involved???
Guess both know that the PO announcement will block out anything else they say.
"Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, whose procurement process commenced in August 1994,[1] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[2] The goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[2] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[2]
"The contract to create the system for Post Office Counters Limited and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[3] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[4]"
Also I look forward to them trying to promote the 9th sequel when the other movies never got released
Attacks on Ed Davey seem to me to be missing the point. The fact that he was post office minister doesn't really single him out. There've been lots of those, many of them just as unsympathetic as Ed Davey was. If they're going after him they should focus on the money he made as a consultant to the Post Office's lawyers. But they don't appear to be doing so.
Manager assume that SPMs are crooks because...
I'm currently tussling with British Gas. Don't get me started.
That did get renamed for the movie version.
So as a short term tactical play, maybe. But it doesn't seem to be just short term. I think that's the Tory campaign. Oh dear...
However, I think you're making an analogy with a one man band (or relatively small business) with a corporate structure ("I ran the company"), and that isn't valid. Clearly, there are relatively small businesses where the sole shareholder is the director and the manager. But there are also very large business where the sole shareholder appoints a board, the board appoint senior managers, the senior managers appoint juniors, the juniors appoint their teams and so on. That is delegation. Once you do that, you own the company, but don't and can't "run" the company. You can argue about the appropriate level of involvement by the sole shareholder - but that shareholder simply cannot be involved in all aspects, has to allow important decisions to be made without reference to him, and has to give a level of credence to information provided to him.
None of that is to put government in the clear on this particular issue. But I don't think your analogy works.
It wasn't rolled-out until after Labour took office. They had the chance to cancel the procurement or delay it, the problems and delays were known when they came in, but they decided not to do so; indeed they accelerated its deployment, meaning over 13,000 branches had it by 2001, and then did nothing for years as the issues were raised and the prosecutions got underway.
They're up to their necks in it.
The Horizon system was commissioned and pushed out by New Labour.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
And been slow timed by successive governments.
Sadly neither Davey nor Starmer are in the frame.
Infected blood scandal: victims’ families call for action amid Post Office injustice
Many of those affected are frustrated their cause is not getting the same attention as the Post Office Horizon scandal
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/infected-blood-scandal-victims-families-call-for-action-amid-post-office-injustice
Plus the economy going well.
Politicians are definitely responsible for failed to get a grip on the compensation scheme, which should have been sorted out a decade ago. But we can say exactly the same about the compensation for contaminated blood recipients. It’s a continuing pattern of behaviour that probably originates with the Treasury demanding that compensation come out of individual departmental budgets.
Whatever his talents, Sunak is hopelessly undercooked as a politician. Starmer isn't great, but he does have relevant skills from his previous career.
What was it he did?
By interesting you mean “you get your dogs to get their paws dirty whilst rise above it yourself” is utterly predictable politics?
Examples of Tory paranoia.
That’s the original sin here. A half decision to almost do something, that floated along for years and left governance structures in limbo. It was half arms length but taking a direction from its only share holder, that presumably said “reduce fraud to zero and simplify the business so we can do something with it”.
This is, of course, why all arms length bodies in Government are bad ideas unless they are truly spun off (though even then, we see in utilities and railways that the Government will always be the final backstop in some sectors). The biggest example being NHS England. Ministers like to think they have got rid of responsibility and accountability, but in extremis, like a boomerang it always comes back. The trouble is you don’t have powers to do anything about actually addressing the problems, so things get even worse.
Of course the real tragedy of the Post Office and Royal Mail is that with a bit of creativity and vision from about 2000, rather than just bemoaning the death of the letter, they could have ridden the wave of online shopping, and the death of the high street, and made billions.
'Eddie Izzard IS **********2!!!'
'I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... we arrived c 9.30pm'
I see we are back to blaming "the last Labour Government" for the failure of the Tories now. This simply will not wash with the public, who are fed up and tired of this country falling apart.
I note Sadiq Khan managed to stop the potential London strike by doing the amazing thing of talking to the unions. He's still managed to achieve far fewer days lost to strike action than that famous Labour mayor Boris Something, so this is clearly a sign of the disaster to come from SKS's Labour Government.
I think at this point certain people are worried that SKS might actually do a good job and put the Tories out of office for a decade. At the moment I would welcome this outcome so the Tories can go back to being sensible and moderate and I might consider voting for them again as I have in the past.
Talk to you on the flip side!
So why are they going backward in the New Year polling?
They must be just a shade over 25% now on poll of poll averages?
When does swing back begin? When do they get a tax cut bounce?
That Peter Lilley commissioned it is confirmed at the 19th page of the PDF file from the PO Inquiry in this link below, pages numbered 73 and 74
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-10/POH 11 October 2022.pdf
"At a meeting of the Post Office Board on 7 May 1996,authority was granted to the Post Office Counter to enter into contracts with the Benefits Agency and Pathway, subject to the resolution of a funding issue affecting the Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland). Having approved the selection of Pathway and having obtained authority from the Treasury for funding of the contract, Peter Lilley, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, made a public announcement on 15 May 1996 confirming the selection of Pathway as the chosen contractor to finance, supply and operate the new automated system for Post Office transactions and
benefit payments"
...
"Shortly after the contract was awarded, ICL purchased the shares which De la Rue and Girobank owned in Pathway, and changed the company's name to ICL Pathway Limited. And I will, from now on, refer to the relevant company as the "ICL Pathway".
I don't understand how anyone can be so blinkered and partisan on such an important issue.
I said that SKS mentions his time as DPP at almost every PMQs and you all had a hissy fit.
Let's draw a line under this and restrict ourselves to this year. To keep it real and relevant.
I would be grateful if someone could supply the stats on his usage of it at PMQs in 2024.
You're possibly the angriest and most partisan poster on this board, and you're only tolerated because you have a mildly funny name.
Watch yourself, or you might give yourself a coronary.
Don't you ever tire of being wrong?
And still does.
Having had an operation in the early 80s which required multiple units of blood, I'm moderately lucky not to have been one of them.
There's plenty on here. We all know their names.
And even for the more comfortably-situated, how many of them are also the parents of the kids who can't get a mortgage and stuck in an expensive rental system etc.; plus I guess tax cuts could really just feel irresponsible especially against a backdrop of strikes, collapsing schools, rubbish trains, government incompetence and sleaze.
Blaming the Tories for commissioning it in the 90s is silly. Blaming the Tories for awarding Vennels a CBE in 2019 , along with Cabinet Office and NHS jobs... seems fair to me.
Yes, this was apparent in at least one of the inquiry testimonies.
In his blog, Nick Wallis, even now, lists SPM theft as one of 14 possibilities of where the money went (below) but points out that the motive of the SPMs is hard to grasp given they had to make good any shortfall.
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/podcast-where-did-all-the-money-go/