I hope one of the things to come out of this is the end of private prosecutions. Private corporations should not have the power or ability to put someone in prison. It stinks.
My instinct is to agree. But I’d be nervous of unintended consequences. It feels like a right we all have (and we do) that we should think before giving up.
There’s also some messiness around the edges you’d have to clear up. I think a number of public bodies (e.g. the FCA and the NHS) prosecute in this way from time to time, and we know the CPS and police are overwhelmed, so would all those prosecutions end rather than be transferred?
"the FCA" - what an institution that is. First rate for protecting money & only giving authorisation to the most diligent of outfits.
There are an endless list of 'scandals' that await us, after the post office situation passes and is 'corrected'. Mostly to do with hospitals, social services, prisons and the police. Many astonishing and unacceptable injustices need to get corrected and thousands of heads must roll.
Starmer was in charge of the CPS when this megachurch scandal was going on though. Why didn’t he put a stop to this?
Why? Why you ask?!! It's for the same reason he does everything.
He likes to cause trouble.
You know he started The French Revolution, dontcha?
He didn’t start the French Revolution however he stood by and did nothing as Director of the revolutionary Tribunal whilst the sub-aristos were wrongly sentenced to the guillotine thanks to Robespierre‘s private prosecutions.
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
Abolishing employer NI would be the right thing to do for the economy, and if they're polling this badly in March it might as well be done. A move that will increase productivity and reduce Labour's ability to grow the state post election...
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
I hope one of the things to come out of this is the end of private prosecutions. Private corporations should not have the power or ability to put someone in prison. It stinks.
My instinct is to agree. But I’d be nervous of unintended consequences. It feels like a right we all have (and we do) that we should think before giving up.
There’s also some messiness around the edges you’d have to clear up. I think a number of public bodies (e.g. the FCA and the NHS) prosecute in this way from time to time, and we know the CPS and police are overwhelmed, so would all those prosecutions end rather than be transferred?
"the FCA" - what an institution that is. First rate for protecting money & only giving authorisation to the most diligent of outfits.
It could be better, but it (and the linked changes to the BoE) was an improvement on the FCA, and a millions times better than the self-regulation that preceded that.
I hope one of the things to come out of this is the end of private prosecutions. Private corporations should not have the power or ability to put someone in prison. It stinks.
My instinct is to agree. But I’d be nervous of unintended consequences. It feels like a right we all have (and we do) that we should think before giving up.
There’s also some messiness around the edges you’d have to clear up. I think a number of public bodies (e.g. the FCA and the NHS) prosecute in this way from time to time, and we know the CPS and police are overwhelmed, so would all those prosecutions end rather than be transferred?
"the FCA" - what an institution that is. First rate for protecting money & only giving authorisation to the most diligent of outfits.
Can I sell you a small bridge, one careful owner? I can arrange the transaction in MalmesburyCoin, via a complex derivative, invested in a novel space launch system. Using AI.
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.
Wroooooooooooooong They are intelligent. It’s scientifically proven in things like face and name recognition and solving puzzles. And form emotional bonds too.
But it’s true, they die. 197 yesterday, 196 today. One died. Don’t know why. Looked like one was using her as a pillow, it might have been grieving. I’m sure some form close bonds with each other.
It might just be how we have completely changed them, and they were less good at finding ways to die when wild animals.
Yes, wild sheep are pretty cunning and are more than capable of acting collectively to, for example, see off a wolf. In the wild, stupid sheep die out and their genes are not passed on. Domestic sheep are not. In amongst the characteristics humans have bred them for, intelligence was not one.
But social intelligence is still important. And domestic sheep are very social animals.
Edit: PS. As is predator avoidance, even in domestic England. One only has to be more alert and faster than the other sheep ... Mrs C and I had to rescue a sheep that had run through a fence to avoid a nice doggie on walkies, and take it to the local farmperson to put it somewhere safe (IIRC in a paddock occupied by a Vietnamese potbellied pig), down in luxurious Dorset (Kingstom Maureward in the Hardy country east of Dorchester).
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
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?
Not sure whether any movement away in the New Year is real or just noise.
However, my personal impression is that the NI cut publicity was badly handled in the sense that it sounded like "aren't you lucky?" when people are not feeling better off, and blame the Conservatives. I would have presented it a bit differently - along the lines that this has been hard, it remains hard, but some progress is being made and we want you to see that in your pay packet. There was a failure to acknowledge how people feel, and that seemed out of touch.
There was also the issue of election delay. It was praised on here and elsewhere for stealing Starmer's thunder. However, an overwhelming majority of the public want an election without delay. So Sunak stole Starmer's thunder by saying, "Look! I'm doing something you don't want me to do by postponing!" Not sure the benefit was worth the cost.
On the second point you are right, there is something other than economics and cost of living pulling Tories down. Maybe they use Sunak too much at centre of messaging, like the home alone video stunt, and its voters seeing and hearing too much of Sunak that’s hurting Tory polling.
On the first point you are tad unfair, the Tories have linked the tax cut to the economy turning the corner and Sunak’s target of halfing inflation that has allowed tax cuts to start at last.
Technically I don’t know how halving inflation found extra money, isn’t it inflation actually gives government money, and rushing to tax cuts too quick can cause inflation?
Although inflation does give government finances a bit of a short term boost (as it tends to increase income a bit sooner than spending), their argument on the inflation point is that there is less need for a contractionary fiscal policy when inflation is lower. That is, they can loosen the purse strings without worrying too much about inflation, as it's lower and going in the right direction.
That's a bit double edged, though, as the slack needs to be taken up by monetary policy, so potentially it means interest rates coming off their (hopefully) peak later than otherwise.
I take your point on the argument that the Conservatives try to sell it as a dividend on progress made on turning round the economy.
But, firstly, it begs the obvious question of why they needed to turn it around. When pushed on it, the argument either comes down to COVID (which has some merit but reminds people of the ongoing inquiry) or Truss (but she was a Conservative PM and "nothing to do with me, guv" from Sunak doesn't cut much ice).
Secondly, people don't feel it has been turned around. Sunak thinks people should appreciate that things are less bad than was predicted in late 2022, and feel good about that, but that is a bit daft. People feel worse off than 18 months ago, and they are. Very few people reason, "I feel worse off than 18 months ago, but also feel better off than I felt I was going to feel now at that time". Sunak is looking from his own perspective (a very wealthy man who isn't affected by any of it but thinks he's done a good job) rather than other people's perspective (struggling with bills).
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
I hope one of the things to come out of this is the end of private prosecutions. Private corporations should not have the power or ability to put someone in prison. It stinks.
My instinct is to agree. But I’d be nervous of unintended consequences. It feels like a right we all have (and we do) that we should think before giving up.
There’s also some messiness around the edges you’d have to clear up. I think a number of public bodies (e.g. the FCA and the NHS) prosecute in this way from time to time, and we know the CPS and police are overwhelmed, so would all those prosecutions end rather than be transferred?
"the FCA" - what an institution that is. First rate for protecting money & only giving authorisation to the most diligent of outfits.
Can I sell you a small bridge, one careful owner? I can arrange the transaction in MalmesburyCoin, via a complex derivative, invested in a novel space launch system. Using AI.
No you can’t do that. But you can offer to expose him to all the risk via an unregulated betting market…..
As everyone on here seems to have been an IT Project Manager in a former life, I defer to experience.
At least we are now getting to the point - the implementation of Horizon. I would imagine Fujitsu said their system could do everything from making tea to launching nuclear missiles and probably evidenced this via screens, test layouts etc. At a time (the mid 90s) when public sector contract management and procurement was still in its infancy, such displays would no doubt have impressed as would claims of within time and within budget implementation.
I've been party to a good few implementations from the client side and when you find out from the implementation team the system can't do all the things you claimed but you've already signed a legally watertight contract, what do you do? Swallow it and hope for the best like a good Mongolian whisky (@Leon can now tell me about the good whisky he's knocked back in downtown Ulan Bator over the years) or try to seek legal redress but find out without paying a big amount of money and losing months you've got no choice.
Thus does the relationship between contractor and client become more akin to kidnapper and hostage and we've all heard about Stockholm Syndrome...
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
And a good start would be to nail gun to the ceiling of the Courts of Justice those who committed perjury in bringing the cases against the SPMs.
Nothing like some examples to brighten the minds of management.
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
As everyone on here seems to have been an IT Project Manager in a former life, I defer to experience.
At least we are now getting to the point - the implementation of Horizon. I would imagine Fujitsu said their system could do everything from making tea to launching nuclear missiles and probably evidenced this via screens, test layouts etc. At a time (the mid 90s) when public sector contract management and procurement was still in its infancy, such displays would no doubt have impressed as would claims of within time and within budget implementation.
I've been party to a good few implementations from the client side and when you find out from the implementation team the system can't do all the things you claimed but you've already signed a legally watertight contract, what do you do? Swallow it and hope for the best like a good Mongolian whisky (@Leon can now tell me about the good whisky he's knocked back in downtown Ulan Bator over the years) or try to seek legal redress but find out without paying a big amount of money and losing months you've got no choice.
Thus does the relationship between contractor and client become more akin to kidnapper and hostage and we've all heard about Stockholm Syndrome...
The customer side of things in my current job are so pleased with what we are delivering, that they hold go-live parties for each new project we complete.
They particularly like the multiple reconciliations inside and outside the system, and the traceability down to the smallest transaction.
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
The right to vote?…..
That comment is a bit "In The Wet", isn't it?
Yes that works. Can I have my five votes?
what about sixes and sevens?
I am assuming my atheism rules me out of service to the church, and I’m far too much of a coward for the armed forces. But then it is the Anglican Church so maybe not, and there’s always the RAF.
As everyone on here seems to have been an IT Project Manager in a former life, I defer to experience.
At least we are now getting to the point - the implementation of Horizon. I would imagine Fujitsu said their system could do everything from making tea to launching nuclear missiles and probably evidenced this via screens, test layouts etc. At a time (the mid 90s) when public sector contract management and procurement was still in its infancy, such displays would no doubt have impressed as would claims of within time and within budget implementation.
I've been party to a good few implementations from the client side and when you find out from the implementation team the system can't do all the things you claimed but you've already signed a legally watertight contract, what do you do? Swallow it and hope for the best like a good Mongolian whisky (@Leon can now tell me about the good whisky he's knocked back in downtown Ulan Bator over the years) or try to seek legal redress but find out without paying a big amount of money and losing months you've got no choice.
Thus does the relationship between contractor and client become more akin to kidnapper and hostage and we've all heard about Stockholm Syndrome...
The customer side of things in my current job are so pleased with what we are delivering, that they hold go-live parties for each new project we complete.
They particularly like the multiple reconciliations inside and outside the system, and the traceability down to the smallest transaction.
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
The right to vote?…..
That comment is a bit "In The Wet", isn't it?
Yes that works. Can I have my five votes?
what about sixes and sevens?
I am assuming my atheism rules me out of service to the church, and I’m far too much of a coward for the armed forces. But then it is the Anglican Church so maybe not, and there’s always the RAF.
As everyone on here seems to have been an IT Project Manager in a former life, I defer to experience.
At least we are now getting to the point - the implementation of Horizon. I would imagine Fujitsu said their system could do everything from making tea to launching nuclear missiles and probably evidenced this via screens, test layouts etc. At a time (the mid 90s) when public sector contract management and procurement was still in its infancy, such displays would no doubt have impressed as would claims of within time and within budget implementation.
I've been party to a good few implementations from the client side and when you find out from the implementation team the system can't do all the things you claimed but you've already signed a legally watertight contract, what do you do? Swallow it and hope for the best like a good Mongolian whisky (@Leon can now tell me about the good whisky he's knocked back in downtown Ulan Bator over the years) or try to seek legal redress but find out without paying a big amount of money and losing months you've got no choice.
Thus does the relationship between contractor and client become more akin to kidnapper and hostage and we've all heard about Stockholm Syndrome...
The customer side of things in my current job are so pleased with what we are delivering, that they hold go-live parties for each new project we complete.
They particularly like the multiple reconciliations inside and outside the system, and the traceability down to the smallest transaction.
I hope one of the things to come out of this is the end of private prosecutions. Private corporations should not have the power or ability to put someone in prison. It stinks.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
And a good start would be to nail gun to the ceiling of the Courts of Justice those who committed perjury in bringing the cases against the SPMs.
Nothing like some examples to brighten the minds of management.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
There are also lots of prosecutions, ie those done by local authorities, which require specialist skills ie for environmental health offences, planning breaches etc. Having observed some of these I would say they can be influenced by the views of officers which would not necessarily be the case if they had to be handed over to a third party to pursue, IE the police/CPS.
I think the problem is that the prosecutors in the Post Office were obviously duplicating the role of the police and CPS. The RSPCA don't now do prosecutions, they decided to hand it all over to the police/CPS.
I doubt the government will actually end private prosecutions as historically lots of injustices have been revealed this way.
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
I would like to see something like - if you are long term unemployed and you manage to get a job and hold onto it for a bit, you get a reward from the state. Rather than a massive reduction in benefits, which means you earn pennies, in effect.
The right to vote?…..
That comment is a bit "In The Wet", isn't it?
Yes that works. Can I have my five votes?
what about sixes and sevens?
I am assuming my atheism rules me out of service to the church, and I’m far too much of a coward for the armed forces. But then it is the Anglican Church so maybe not, and there’s always the RAF.
Isn't atheism mandatory in the Church of England these days?
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?
Not sure whether any movement away in the New Year is real or just noise.
However, my personal impression is that the NI cut publicity was badly handled in the sense that it sounded like "aren't you lucky?" when people are not feeling better off, and blame the Conservatives. I would have presented it a bit differently - along the lines that this has been hard, it remains hard, but some progress is being made and we want you to see that in your pay packet. There was a failure to acknowledge how people feel, and that seemed out of touch.
There was also the issue of election delay. It was praised on here and elsewhere for stealing Starmer's thunder. However, an overwhelming majority of the public want an election without delay. So Sunak stole Starmer's thunder by saying, "Look! I'm doing something you don't want me to do by postponing!" Not sure the benefit was worth the cost.
On the second point you are right, there is something other than economics and cost of living pulling Tories down. Maybe they use Sunak too much at centre of messaging, like the home alone video stunt, and its voters seeing and hearing too much of Sunak that’s hurting Tory polling.
On the first point you are tad unfair, the Tories have linked the tax cut to the economy turning the corner and Sunak’s target of halfing inflation that has allowed tax cuts to start at last.
Technically I don’t know how halving inflation found extra money, isn’t it inflation actually gives government money, and rushing to tax cuts too quick can cause inflation?
The problem with Sunak's govt is that it is more left wing than any Tory govt in living memory (and IMO more left wing than Blair's govt, too), by growing the state and the Blob particularly, and massively restricting freedom of Britons, and yet he continually talks up a right-wing agenda that doesn't really exist - anti immigration and tax cuts.
So by talking right he alienates the chatterati who benefit from his growing the state, and by doing left he alienates the traditional tory base.
I will likely not be voting for a Tory party that is led in such a feckless manner by an ineffective managerialist like Sunak. I have only ever voted Tory before. Yet friends who would approve of many of Sunak's measures if they were promoted by Starmer, will huff and puff. So the party is in a lose-lose.
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.
You saying voters actually believe taxes are still going up whilst they clearly see Tories actually cutting them?
Taxes are going up, via fiscal drag.
While I'm delighted to see NI cut and want it to be abolished, giving a fraction of a tax rise back to cut taxes is nothing to be proud of.
Will they unfreeze thresholds at the budget? I'm guessing yes.
Not sure about that. They will want the biggest bang possible for their bucks. A cut in the basic rate will have far more impact than an increase in allowances which relatively few people understand.
I think they will do both.
How about something really dramatic: abolish employee NI?
Nah. That would actually be quite progressive….
Abolishing employer NI would be the right thing to do for the economy, and if they're polling this badly in March it might as well be done. A move that will increase productivity and reduce Labour's ability to grow the state post election...
There are £100bn why they won’t abolish Employer NI.
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?
I'll remember that argument whenever the Edinburgh Trams project is mentioned.
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.
Claiming that, years back, they had to put tons of their own money in to achieve their weekly balance would be a more rational strategy.
But you’re right that if those in power get too carried away with getting all the victims reimbursed and exonerated pdq, the collateral will be some dodgy and guilty piggybackers will walk away with some free money courtesy of the taxpayer. The question is how much we care now, and how much we might care in the future?
It’s akin to the PPE scandal where we were more relaxed about being ripped off at the time than we are when the details surface afterwards.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
There are also lots of prosecutions, ie those done by local authorities, which require specialist skills ie for environmental health offences, planning breaches etc. Having observed some of these I would say they can be influenced by the views of officers which would not necessarily be the case if they had to be handed over to a third party to pursue, IE the police/CPS.
I think the problem is that the prosecutors in the Post Office were obviously duplicating the role of the police and CPS. The RSPCA don't now do prosecutions, they decided to hand it all over to the police/CPS.
I doubt the government will actually end private prosecutions as historically lots of injustices have been revealed this way.
Private prosecutions should not be for the type of crime which could lead to the possibility of imprisonment, surely?
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
There are also lots of prosecutions, ie those done by local authorities, which require specialist skills ie for environmental health offences, planning breaches etc. Having observed some of these I would say they can be influenced by the views of officers which would not necessarily be the case if they had to be handed over to a third party to pursue, IE the police/CPS.
I think the problem is that the prosecutors in the Post Office were obviously duplicating the role of the police and CPS. The RSPCA don't now do prosecutions, they decided to hand it all over to the police/CPS.
I doubt the government will actually end private prosecutions as historically lots of injustices have been revealed this way.
Private prosecutions should not be for the type of crime which could lead to the possibility of imprisonment, surely?
Every party has failed to get a handle on this issue and are all equally to blame for various different times they could have sorted it out and did not.
I don't think they're equally to blame - they're rather differently to blame.
The charge against the previous Labour government is administrative incompetence rather than malign maladministration. The adoption of the Horizon scheme itself, and the terms of the contract, had serious consequences, but certainly no one here was calling it a mistake at the time.
The choice to legislate to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant with regard to computer evidence was undoubtedly theirs, was criticised at the time (though no one quite foresaw its consequences), and is a fundamental factor in the miscarriages of justice since.
The charge against subsequent administrations is that the consequences were repeatedly brought to their attention, and repeatedly ignored or minimised.
So they are effectively complicit in perpetuating Labour's mistakes, and beyond that, responsible for perpetuating the subsequent injustices.
None of the politicians are criminally responsible, which many individuals more directly involved quite probably are.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
The RSPCA had issues with their private prosecutions, as covered in Private Eye passim.
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?
Not sure whether any movement away in the New Year is real or just noise.
However, my personal impression is that the NI cut publicity was badly handled in the sense that it sounded like "aren't you lucky?" when people are not feeling better off, and blame the Conservatives. I would have presented it a bit differently - along the lines that this has been hard, it remains hard, but some progress is being made and we want you to see that in your pay packet. There was a failure to acknowledge how people feel, and that seemed out of touch.
There was also the issue of election delay. It was praised on here and elsewhere for stealing Starmer's thunder. However, an overwhelming majority of the public want an election without delay. So Sunak stole Starmer's thunder by saying, "Look! I'm doing something you don't want me to do by postponing!" Not sure the benefit was worth the cost.
On the second point you are right, there is something other than economics and cost of living pulling Tories down. Maybe they use Sunak too much at centre of messaging, like the home alone video stunt, and its voters seeing and hearing too much of Sunak that’s hurting Tory polling.
On the first point you are tad unfair, the Tories have linked the tax cut to the economy turning the corner and Sunak’s target of halfing inflation that has allowed tax cuts to start at last.
Technically I don’t know how halving inflation found extra money, isn’t it inflation actually gives government money, and rushing to tax cuts too quick can cause inflation?
Although inflation does give government finances a bit of a short term boost (as it tends to increase income a bit sooner than spending), their argument on the inflation point is that there is less need for a contractionary fiscal policy when inflation is lower. That is, they can loosen the purse strings without worrying too much about inflation, as it's lower and going in the right direction.
That's a bit double edged, though, as the slack needs to be taken up by monetary policy, so potentially it means interest rates coming off their (hopefully) peak later than otherwise.
I take your point on the argument that the Conservatives try to sell it as a dividend on progress made on turning round the economy.
But, firstly, it begs the obvious question of why they needed to turn it around. When pushed on it, the argument either comes down to COVID (which has some merit but reminds people of the ongoing inquiry) or Truss (but she was a Conservative PM and "nothing to do with me, guv" from Sunak doesn't cut much ice).
Secondly, people don't feel it has been turned around. Sunak thinks people should appreciate that things are less bad than was predicted in late 2022, and feel good about that, but that is a bit daft. People feel worse off than 18 months ago, and they are. Very few people reason, "I feel worse off than 18 months ago, but also feel better off than I felt I was going to feel now at that time". Sunak is looking from his own perspective (a very wealthy man who isn't affected by any of it but thinks he's done a good job) rather than other people's perspective (struggling with bills).
Do you know, I think we have worked this to a point we totally agree. At PMQs today was a Primeminister talking everything up as best ever, just as he so predictably needs to in an election year, and an opposition leader talking the nation down, just as he needs to do, every years as an opposition leader. It was actually predictable and dull, we could have anticipated it and written it ourselves.
headline on todays Telegraph front page - Britain is on track to borrow a record £206 Billion from private investors this year as shameless Rishi Sunak embarks on a “Debt Binge ahead of the General Election.”
But he’s got to hasn’t he? Unless the Telegraph business team makes it the only newspaper reporting this because they prefer better fiscal conservatism and responsibility at all points of the electoral cycle?
I think one thing Sunak shouted twice at PMQs, proves your point - “I am on the side of controlling immigration, Mr Speaker, whilst he is on the side of the people smugglers!” as being just a little bit too over the top that it just doesn’t convince or even realistically mean anything?
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
The RSPCA had issues with their private prosecutions, as covered in Private Eye passim.
There are an endless list of 'scandals' that await us, after the post office situation passes and is 'corrected'. Mostly to do with hospitals, social services, prisons and the police. Many astonishing and unacceptable injustices need to get corrected and thousands of heads must roll.
Starmer was in charge of the CPS when this megachurch scandal was going on though. Why didn’t he put a stop to this?
Why? Why you ask?!! It's for the same reason he does everything.
He likes to cause trouble.
You know he started The French Revolution, dontcha?
My brother is convinced the Knights Templar controlled the French Revolution, proved to us by adding Fraternité to Liberté Égalité - because Templars regard of women meant the motto could not use a less man orientated approach. He does have a point.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
There are also lots of prosecutions, ie those done by local authorities, which require specialist skills ie for environmental health offences, planning breaches etc. Having observed some of these I would say they can be influenced by the views of officers which would not necessarily be the case if they had to be handed over to a third party to pursue, IE the police/CPS.
I think the problem is that the prosecutors in the Post Office were obviously duplicating the role of the police and CPS. The RSPCA don't now do prosecutions, they decided to hand it all over to the police/CPS.
I doubt the government will actually end private prosecutions as historically lots of injustices have been revealed this way.
Private prosecutions should not be for the type of crime which could lead to the possibility of imprisonment, surely?
Why?
What makes the CPS so wonderful?
Firstly, they aren't the investigator and don't have an axe to grind particularly. When they look at a Police file, it isn't their theory of what happened they are considering. They can take a reasonably objective view of the strength of the case and prospects of conviction. The CPS can get over-invested in a case, but are more likely if new information comes forward to change the position, to simply drop it for other things.
Secondly, there isn't the level of commercial or political pressure for results. Managers (Starmer at one time) will want a good conviction rate BUT that's a percentage of cases taken to conclusion, not of those referred by Police. Whereas the Post Office have a financial interest in number of successful prosecutions concluded.
Thirdly, because they are doing prosecutions in volume, in general the CPS attract experienced, capable people and have the institutional systems and experience to do it better. Put it this way, if you want a successful career as a prosecutor, joining the Post Office is an odd way to do it.
That's not at all to say the CPS is brilliant and flawless. It isn't. But those are some key reasons to think they are better placed to do a good (or at least honest) job.
As everyone on here seems to have been an IT Project Manager in a former life, I defer to experience.
At least we are now getting to the point - the implementation of Horizon. I would imagine Fujitsu said their system could do everything from making tea to launching nuclear missiles and probably evidenced this via screens, test layouts etc. At a time (the mid 90s) when public sector contract management and procurement was still in its infancy, such displays would no doubt have impressed as would claims of within time and within budget implementation.
I've been party to a good few implementations from the client side and when you find out from the implementation team the system can't do all the things you claimed but you've already signed a legally watertight contract, what do you do? Swallow it and hope for the best like a good Mongolian whisky (@Leon can now tell me about the good whisky he's knocked back in downtown Ulan Bator over the years) or try to seek legal redress but find out without paying a big amount of money and losing months you've got no choice.
Thus does the relationship between contractor and client become more akin to kidnapper and hostage and we've all heard about Stockholm Syndrome...
The customer side of things in my current job are so pleased with what we are delivering, that they hold go-live parties for each new project we complete.
They particularly like the multiple reconciliations inside and outside the system, and the traceability down to the smallest transaction.
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.
The basic idea of a computerised post office counter system reporting to HQ, doing the books etc was sensible. In fact, the standard way of doing things in most of retail.
The problem was
1) The implementation was crap 2) The crapness resulted in the prosecutions. 3) Managers with write-only minds failed to notice anything 4) When they did notice, they lied and covered up. Then lied and covered up. And carried on with the prosecutions. 5) As this went up the chain, so did the lying about it. Until everyone who knew was lying like Professors of Lying at Lying University in Lyingshire. 6) Meanwhile they were doing "Fuck you, pay me"* to all the SPMs
1) was required to create the disaster. But 2-6) were required to make the slow motion disaster destroy so many lives.
1) on it's own might have resulted in a handful of mistaken prosecutions, before the fuck up was corrected.
That's a good (but sad...) list. I'd just like to add two points:
*) Essentially, the cover-up caused this mess. When the PO realised something was wrong - which they must have done fairly early on - instead of admitting it and sorting it out, they lied and continued as before.
Strictly, when the PO realised something was wrong, they were willing to fund an independent investigation and fund an independent mediation scheme. Arbuthnot has said that his initial interactions with Vennells et al were constructive.
When they realised that what was wrong was a huge iceberg that would sink the entire ship, then somehow - yet to be established - they decided to obstruct and cover up. Which is shameful, and the main task of the inquiry to uncover.
Paradoxically, their original willingness to open their books is evidence that, at the top of the organisation at least, they didn’t have a full understanding of the abject shambles they were sitting on, long after it was apparent to people further down whose working lives were deep within it.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
The RSPCA had issues with their private prosecutions, as covered in Private Eye passim.
Surely the issue is not private prosecutions, per se, but the fact that the Post Office prosecutors completely threw out their legal and moral obligations.
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
The RSPCA had issues with their private prosecutions, as covered in Private Eye passim.
It looks bizzare on the face of it why the court has not ordered the RSPCA to compensate him for his 90k expenses and only awarded him 30k. Some of the awards by courts to the wronged Postmasters also seem... small -
Now I don't think we should go down US size payments, but British courts do seem very mean on awards for those wronged against a big stat. or corporate body.
Every party has failed to get a handle on this issue and are all equally to blame for various different times they could have sorted it out and did not.
I don't think they're equally to blame - they're rather differently to blame.
The charge against the previous Labour government is administrative incompetence rather than malign maladministration. The adoption of the Horizon scheme itself, and the terms of the contract, had serious consequences, but certainly no one here was calling it a mistake at the time.
The choice to legislate to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant with regard to computer evidence was undoubtedly theirs, was criticised at the time (though no one quite foresaw its consequences), and is a fundamental factor in the miscarriages of justice since.
The charge against subsequent administrations is that the consequences were repeatedly brought to their attention, and repeatedly ignored or minimised.
So they are effectively complicit in perpetuating Labour's mistakes, and beyond that, responsible for perpetuating the subsequent injustices.
None of the politicians are criminally responsible, which many individuals more directly involved quite probably are.
A very fair assessment.
It may be that none of the politicians are criminally responsible. But politics isn't fair - and this crisis is yet capable of claiming a scalp or two. That the LibDems have had to send a talking points letter to their MPs on what to say to the voters tells you they are having some serious concerns on how this is playing for Sir Ed Davey.
This whole problem started with lying, then doubling down on lies. The public's judgment will be brutal on any politician who is less than candid about their involvement.
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.
The basic idea of a computerised post office counter system reporting to HQ, doing the books etc was sensible. In fact, the standard way of doing things in most of retail.
The problem was
1) The implementation was crap 2) The crapness resulted in the prosecutions. 3) Managers with write-only minds failed to notice anything 4) When they did notice, they lied and covered up. Then lied and covered up. And carried on with the prosecutions. 5) As this went up the chain, so did the lying about it. Until everyone who knew was lying like Professors of Lying at Lying University in Lyingshire. 6) Meanwhile they were doing "Fuck you, pay me"* to all the SPMs
1) was required to create the disaster. But 2-6) were required to make the slow motion disaster destroy so many lives.
1) on it's own might have resulted in a handful of mistaken prosecutions, before the fuck up was corrected.
That's a good (but sad...) list. I'd just like to add two points:
*) Essentially, the cover-up caused this mess. When the PO realised something was wrong - which they must have done fairly early on - instead of admitting it and sorting it out, they lied and continued as before.
Strictly, when the PO realised something was wrong, they were willing to fund an independent investigation and fund an independent mediation scheme. Arbuthnot has said that his initial interactions with Vennells et al were constructive.
When they realised that what was wrong was a huge iceberg that would sink the entire ship, then somehow - yet to be established - they decided to obstruct and cover up. Which is shameful, and the main task of the inquiry to uncover.
Paradoxically, their original willingness to open their books is evidence that, at the top of the organisation at least, they didn’t have a full understanding of the abject shambles they were sitting on, long after it was apparent to people further down whose working lives were deep within it.
Yes, it shouldn't be forgotten that Vennells set up the independent inquiry by Second Sight voluntarily and at the PO's expense. As you indicate, it was only later when it started to report adverse findings that she backtracked.
And lest we be tempted to slag off all politicians, James Arbuthnot (my former MP) stands out like a beacon of light and reason.
Seattle Times ($) - NTSB focus on Boeing, Spirit assembly work after Alaska Airlines blowout by Dominic Gates Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Speaking late Monday about the fuselage blowout on Alaska Airlines flight 1282, National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy discounted the likelihood of negligence by the airline.
Instead, the initial NTSB findings focused squarely on the manufacture and installation of the door plug that fell off the 737 MAX 9 aircraft, leaving a gaping hole in the passenger cabin wall and causing the plane to rapidly depressurize at 16,000 feet
That leaves supplier Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, Kan., on the hook for installing the door plug and Boeing in Renton for final inspection of the component before sealing it behind insulation and sidewall.
The hope that this incident might be a one-off aberration was dashed Monday when both Alaska and United found loose bolts on door plugs while inspecting other MAX 9s. This now looks more like a serious factory quality control issue for Boeing.
The plug is a panel used to seal a fuselage cutout for an optional emergency exit door that is used only by a few airlines with high-density seating. Most airlines, inlcuding Alaska and United in the U.S. don’t have a door there, instead installing the plug, which appears to passengers inside as just another window.
The focus of the discussion in the Monday news conference, after investigators examined both the aircraft and the door plug that fell off — it was found Sunday in the backyard of a Portland teacher — was four missing bolts that should have kept the door plug in place. “We don’t know if there were bolts there, or if they are just missing and departed when the door plug departed … during the violent explosive decompression,” Homendy said.
On Tuesday a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration suggested the return of the MAX 9 to the skies may take a while.
The FAA confirmed that Boeing on Monday sent out initial inspection instructions to airlines that were inadequate. Boeing will have to revise those instructions and the FAA approve them.
“The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service,” the FAA said.
Alaska Airlines said Tuesday it still awaits those approved final inspection and maintenance instructions for its fleet of 65 MAX 9s.
“Until then, the Boeing 737-9 MAX fleet will remain grounded,” Alaska said.
A somber Boeing gathering On Tuesday, as Boeing attempted to take stock of the impact of the accident, top executives gathered in Renton for an employee safety meeting.
CEO Dave Calhoun . . . . called the accident “a reminder of the seriousness with which we have to approach our work” and said it has created “a very anxious moment” for Boeing’s airline customers. . . .
Every party has failed to get a handle on this issue and are all equally to blame for various different times they could have sorted it out and did not.
I don't think they're equally to blame - they're rather differently to blame.
The charge against the previous Labour government is administrative incompetence rather than malign maladministration. The adoption of the Horizon scheme itself, and the terms of the contract, had serious consequences, but certainly no one here was calling it a mistake at the time.
The choice to legislate to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant with regard to computer evidence was undoubtedly theirs, was criticised at the time (though no one quite foresaw its consequences), and is a fundamental factor in the miscarriages of justice since.
The charge against subsequent administrations is that the consequences were repeatedly brought to their attention, and repeatedly ignored or minimised.
So they are effectively complicit in perpetuating Labour's mistakes, and beyond that, responsible for perpetuating the subsequent injustices.
None of the politicians are criminally responsible, which many individuals more directly involved quite probably are.
A very fair assessment.
It may be that none of the politicians are criminally responsible. But politics isn't fair - and this crisis is yet capable of claiming a scalp or two. That the LibDems have had to send a talking points letter to their MPs on what to say to the voters tells you they are having some serious concerns on how this is playing for Sir Ed Davey.
This whole problem started with lying, then doubling down on lies. The public's judgment will be brutal on any politician who is less than candid about their involvement.
Davey’s approach of saying that he was just a poor, lowly minister who was lied to by the powerful people at the Post Office isn’t likely to win many votes. Why would you want someone so ineffective in government?
Seattle Times ($) - NTSB focus on Boeing, Spirit assembly work after Alaska Airlines blowout by Dominic Gates Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Speaking late Monday about the fuselage blowout on Alaska Airlines flight 1282, National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy discounted the likelihood of negligence by the airline.
Instead, the initial NTSB findings focused squarely on the manufacture and installation of the door plug that fell off the 737 MAX 9 aircraft, leaving a gaping hole in the passenger cabin wall and causing the plane to rapidly depressurize at 16,000 feet
That leaves supplier Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, Kan., on the hook for installing the door plug and Boeing in Renton for final inspection of the component before sealing it behind insulation and sidewall.
The hope that this incident might be a one-off aberration was dashed Monday when both Alaska and United found loose bolts on door plugs while inspecting other MAX 9s. This now looks more like a serious factory quality control issue for Boeing.
The plug is a panel used to seal a fuselage cutout for an optional emergency exit door that is used only by a few airlines with high-density seating. Most airlines, inlcuding Alaska and United in the U.S. don’t have a door there, instead installing the plug, which appears to passengers inside as just another window.
The focus of the discussion in the Monday news conference, after investigators examined both the aircraft and the door plug that fell off — it was found Sunday in the backyard of a Portland teacher — was four missing bolts that should have kept the door plug in place. “We don’t know if there were bolts there, or if they are just missing and departed when the door plug departed … during the violent explosive decompression,” Homendy said.
On Tuesday a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration suggested the return of the MAX 9 to the skies may take a while.
The FAA confirmed that Boeing on Monday sent out initial inspection instructions to airlines that were inadequate. Boeing will have to revise those instructions and the FAA approve them.
“The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service,” the FAA said.
Alaska Airlines said Tuesday it still awaits those approved final inspection and maintenance instructions for its fleet of 65 MAX 9s.
“Until then, the Boeing 737-9 MAX fleet will remain grounded,” Alaska said.
A somber Boeing gathering On Tuesday, as Boeing attempted to take stock of the impact of the accident, top executives gathered in Renton for an employee safety meeting.
CEO Dave Calhoun . . . . called the accident “a reminder of the seriousness with which we have to approach our work” and said it has created “a very anxious moment” for Boeing’s airline customers. . . .
Open the door (stop it) to the room of pain. This could well be the end of Boeing. They had a program in place to develop a brand new narrow body, but binned it in favour of a quicker cheaper project to keep the 737 relevant.
Every party has failed to get a handle on this issue and are all equally to blame for various different times they could have sorted it out and did not.
I don't think they're equally to blame - they're rather differently to blame.
The charge against the previous Labour government is administrative incompetence rather than malign maladministration. The adoption of the Horizon scheme itself, and the terms of the contract, had serious consequences, but certainly no one here was calling it a mistake at the time.
The choice to legislate to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant with regard to computer evidence was undoubtedly theirs, was criticised at the time (though no one quite foresaw its consequences), and is a fundamental factor in the miscarriages of justice since.
The charge against subsequent administrations is that the consequences were repeatedly brought to their attention, and repeatedly ignored or minimised.
So they are effectively complicit in perpetuating Labour's mistakes, and beyond that, responsible for perpetuating the subsequent injustices.
None of the politicians are criminally responsible, which many individuals more directly involved quite probably are.
A very fair assessment.
It may be that none of the politicians are criminally responsible. But politics isn't fair - and this crisis is yet capable of claiming a scalp or two. That the LibDems have had to send a talking points letter to their MPs on what to say to the voters tells you they are having some serious concerns on how this is playing for Sir Ed Davey.
This whole problem started with lying, then doubling down on lies. The public's judgment will be brutal on any politician who is less than candid about their involvement.
There's also a distinction to be drawn between those to blame, and those who are politically responsibility. It's only on the latter ground that someone like Davey - whose failure seems to have been to not realise the injustice, rather than deliberately to ignore it - might want to consider his position.
The grounds for demanding his resignation are very thin - but he might decide the point of principle is worth making a stand on.
Subscribers to Nick Wallis's email letters will have just received a mail with the following extraordinary extract:
"Now read this - a comment sent for publication to a blog post I wrote from a purported for Fujitsu engineer using a dummy email address:
"While I put through no phantom entries myself, I was aware how commonplace it was, and the trivially easy overriding of the rudimentary audit trail embedded in the software too.
"What started as a prank swiftly became a crime, I prefer to believe most of the perpetrators never seriously consider that POL would treat the discrepancies so seriously and initiate prosecutions. It got totally out of hand. 90% of the phantoms were 'against' the agents, thus unjustly enriching POL.
"Did you notice the disproportionate number of victims whose agent locations were in Wales?"
Usual caveats apply. Could be fake, but if there is any substance to it this scandal has a bit to run yet.
I don't think many politicians or any party comes out of this PO scandal well. Nor does most of the press, with some exceptions. But for most of the extended period of time this scandal played out - pretty much my entire adult life - the public hasn't cared either. So perhaps you can understand why elected politicians didn't feel the need to involve themselves too deeply. I wonder whether the issue of complexity is the problem here. Although on one level the issue is simple - people lied to cover up problems with a product and tried to shift the blame for the problems onto innocent people - the details are quite complex, hard for the public or politicians to cut through especially when the experts can't be trusted. You see similar problems around other complex technical issues - epidemiology, trade with Europe - where politicians either deny responsibility or weaponise the complexity to deliberately misrepresent things. I wonder whether the real failure here lies with the House of Lords. Isn't the whole point of the unelected House that it is composed of people with expertise who can dig into complex issues, including ones that the public don't currently care about? Isn't this precisely the kind of issue that an effective HoL would have got stuck into a decade ago? Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think I've seen that kind of activity.
January 15: Iowa - Democratic and Republican caucuses January 23: New Hampshire - Democratic and Republican primaries February 3: South Carolina - Democratic primary February 6: Nevada - Democratic and Republican primaries February 8: Nevada - party-organized caucuses February 24: South Carolina - Republican primary February 27: Michigan - Democratic and Republican primaries March 2: Idaho, Michigan, and Missouri - Republican caucuses March 3: District of Columbia - Republican primary March 4:North Dakota - Republican caucuses March 5: Super Tuesday
Some slight (but still significant) additions & corrections to above:
January 15 > Iowa - Democratic caucuses, as per wiki: In this cycle, in-person caucuses focusing only on party business will be held on January 15, but voting on candidates would be done exclusively via mail-in ballots from January 12 until Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024. This was the result of a compromise between the Iowa Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).\
February 6 > Nevada Republican primary - NOTE that state GOP party rules bar any candidate appearing on this primary ballot, from receiving ANY pledged delegates, awarded sole on basis of Feb 8 Republican caucuses.
February 8> Nevada - NOTE no Democratic caucuses; PLUS Virgin Islands = Republican caucus
March 5 Super Tuesday > primaries in Alabama, Alaska (R only), California, Colorado, Iowa (D only), Maine, Mass, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah (D only), Vermont, Virginia PLUS caucuses in American Samoa and Utah (R only)
I don't think many politicians or any party comes out of this PO scandal well. Nor does most of the press, with some exceptions. But for most of the extended period of time this scandal played out - pretty much my entire adult life - the public hasn't cared either. So perhaps you can understand why elected politicians didn't feel the need to involve themselves too deeply. I wonder whether the issue of complexity is the problem here. Although on one level the issue is simple - people lied to cover up problems with a product and tried to shift the blame for the problems onto innocent people - the details are quite complex, hard for the public or politicians to cut through especially when the experts can't be trusted. You see similar problems around other complex technical issues - epidemiology, trade with Europe - where politicians either deny responsibility or weaponise the complexity to deliberately misrepresent things. I wonder whether the real failure here lies with the House of Lords. Isn't the whole point of the unelected House that it is composed of people with expertise who can dig into complex issues, including ones that the public don't currently care about? Isn't this precisely the kind of issue that an effective HoL would have got stuck into a decade ago? Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think I've seen that kind of activity.
I think people are overthinking this. The real blame lies with the Post Office management and its lawyers.
I hope one of the things to come out of this is the end of private prosecutions. Private corporations should not have the power or ability to put someone in prison. It stinks.
Comments
Baby steps.
Edit: PS. As is predator avoidance, even in domestic England. One only has to be more alert and faster than the other sheep ... Mrs C and I had to rescue a sheep that had run through a fence to avoid a nice doggie on walkies, and take it to the local farmperson to put it somewhere safe (IIRC in a paddock occupied by a Vietnamese potbellied pig), down in luxurious Dorset (Kingstom Maureward in the Hardy country east of Dorchester).
There are a surprisingly large number of private prosecutions. Essentially all animal welfare prosecutions are via the RSPCA. A lot of shoplifting prosecutions are done by stores themselves, because the police and CPS don't want to want to waste their time on small cases.
If you wish to bring a private prosecution, and it turns out you suppressed evidence, then you are guilty of perversion of the course of justice, which is a very serious crime. Rather than eliminating the role of people to bring private prosecutions, let's make sure we hold those who bring them to the same standards we hold the police and the Crow Prosecution Service.
That's a bit double edged, though, as the slack needs to be taken up by monetary policy, so potentially it means interest rates coming off their (hopefully) peak later than otherwise.
I take your point on the argument that the Conservatives try to sell it as a dividend on progress made on turning round the economy.
But, firstly, it begs the obvious question of why they needed to turn it around. When pushed on it, the argument either comes down to COVID (which has some merit but reminds people of the ongoing inquiry) or Truss (but she was a Conservative PM and "nothing to do with me, guv" from Sunak doesn't cut much ice).
Secondly, people don't feel it has been turned around. Sunak thinks people should appreciate that things are less bad than was predicted in late 2022, and feel good about that, but that is a bit daft. People feel worse off than 18 months ago, and they are. Very few people reason, "I feel worse off than 18 months ago, but also feel better off than I felt I was going to feel now at that time". Sunak is looking from his own perspective (a very wealthy man who isn't affected by any of it but thinks he's done a good job) rather than other people's perspective (struggling with bills).
As everyone on here seems to have been an IT Project Manager in a former life, I defer to experience.
At least we are now getting to the point - the implementation of Horizon. I would imagine Fujitsu said their system could do everything from making tea to launching nuclear missiles and probably evidenced this via screens, test layouts etc. At a time (the mid 90s) when public sector contract management and procurement was still in its infancy, such displays would no doubt have impressed as would claims of within time and within budget implementation.
I've been party to a good few implementations from the client side and when you find out from the implementation team the system can't do all the things you claimed but you've already signed a legally watertight contract, what do you do? Swallow it and hope for the best like a good Mongolian whisky (@Leon can now tell me about the good whisky he's knocked back in downtown Ulan Bator over the years) or try to seek legal redress but find out without paying a big amount of money and losing months you've got no choice.
Thus does the relationship between contractor and client become more akin to kidnapper and hostage and we've all heard about Stockholm Syndrome...
Nothing like some examples to brighten the minds of management.
They particularly like the multiple reconciliations inside and outside the system, and the traceability down to the smallest transaction.
They might not be able to carry the load.
I think the problem is that the prosecutors in the Post Office were obviously duplicating the role of the police and CPS. The RSPCA don't now do prosecutions, they decided to hand it all over to the police/CPS.
I doubt the government will actually end private prosecutions as historically lots of injustices have been revealed this way.
So by talking right he alienates the chatterati who benefit from his growing the state, and by doing left he alienates the traditional tory base.
I will likely not be voting for a Tory party that is led in such a feckless manner by an ineffective managerialist like Sunak. I have only ever voted Tory before. Yet friends who would approve of many of Sunak's measures if they were promoted by Starmer, will huff and puff. So the party is in a lose-lose.
But you’re right that if those in power get too carried away with getting all the victims reimbursed and exonerated pdq, the collateral will be some dodgy and guilty piggybackers will walk away with some free money courtesy of the taxpayer. The question is how much we care now, and how much we might care in the future?
It’s akin to the PPE scandal where we were more relaxed about being ripped off at the time than we are when the details surface afterwards.
What makes the CPS so wonderful?
The charge against the previous Labour government is administrative incompetence rather than malign maladministration.
The adoption of the Horizon scheme itself, and the terms of the contract, had serious consequences, but certainly no one here was calling it a mistake at the time.
The choice to legislate to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant with regard to computer evidence was undoubtedly theirs, was criticised at the time (though no one quite foresaw its consequences), and is a fundamental factor in the miscarriages of justice since.
The charge against subsequent administrations is that the consequences were repeatedly brought to their attention, and repeatedly ignored or minimised.
So they are effectively complicit in perpetuating Labour's mistakes, and beyond that, responsible for perpetuating the subsequent injustices.
None of the politicians are criminally responsible, which many individuals more directly involved quite probably are.
For an example, see:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12714743/farmer-blasts-rspca-wrongful-arrest-mistreating-sheep.html (Sorry, Daily Mail...)
headline on todays Telegraph front page - Britain is on track to borrow a record £206 Billion from private investors this year as shameless Rishi Sunak embarks on a “Debt Binge ahead of the General Election.”
But he’s got to hasn’t he? Unless the Telegraph business team makes it the only newspaper reporting this because they prefer better fiscal conservatism and responsibility at all points of the electoral cycle?
I think one thing Sunak shouted twice at PMQs, proves your point - “I am on the side of controlling immigration, Mr Speaker, whilst he is on the side of the people smugglers!” as being just a little bit too over the top that it just doesn’t convince or even realistically mean anything?
Secondly, there isn't the level of commercial or political pressure for results. Managers (Starmer at one time) will want a good conviction rate BUT that's a percentage of cases taken to conclusion, not of those referred by Police. Whereas the Post Office have a financial interest in number of successful prosecutions concluded.
Thirdly, because they are doing prosecutions in volume, in general the CPS attract experienced, capable people and have the institutional systems and experience to do it better. Put it this way, if you want a successful career as a prosecutor, joining the Post Office is an odd way to do it.
That's not at all to say the CPS is brilliant and flawless. It isn't. But those are some key reasons to think they are better placed to do a good (or at least honest) job.
When they realised that what was wrong was a huge iceberg that would sink the entire ship, then somehow - yet to be established - they decided to obstruct and cover up. Which is shameful, and the main task of the inquiry to uncover.
Paradoxically, their original willingness to open their books is evidence that, at the top of the organisation at least, they didn’t have a full understanding of the abject shambles they were sitting on, long after it was apparent to people further down whose working lives were deep within it.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/prosecution/howwedecide
And this from last year:
https://www.mountfordchambers.com/zayd-ahmed-successful-in-private-prosecution-for-the-rspca-where-he-secured-two-convictions-for-two-defendants-for-offences-contrary-to-the-animal-welfare-act-2006/
And this is still a current page, although from 2019:
https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/prosecution
So it is as clear as mud.
From memory, a problem was that the inspectors that often produced evidence, and the prosecutors, worked for the same organisation (the RSPC).
Now I don't think we should go down US size payments, but British courts do seem very mean on awards for those wronged against a big stat. or corporate body.
It may be that none of the politicians are criminally responsible. But politics isn't fair - and this crisis is yet capable of claiming a scalp or two. That the LibDems have had to send a talking points letter to their MPs on what to say to the voters tells you they are having some serious concerns on how this is playing for Sir Ed Davey.
This whole problem started with lying, then doubling down on lies. The public's judgment will be brutal on any politician who is less than candid about their involvement.
And lest we be tempted to slag off all politicians, James Arbuthnot (my former MP) stands out like a beacon of light and reason.
by Dominic Gates Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Speaking late Monday about the fuselage blowout on Alaska Airlines flight 1282, National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy discounted the likelihood of negligence by the airline.
Instead, the initial NTSB findings focused squarely on the manufacture and installation of the door plug that fell off the 737 MAX 9 aircraft, leaving a gaping hole in the passenger cabin wall and causing the plane to rapidly depressurize at 16,000 feet
That leaves supplier Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, Kan., on the hook for installing the door plug and Boeing in Renton for final inspection of the component before sealing it behind insulation and sidewall.
The hope that this incident might be a one-off aberration was dashed Monday when both Alaska and United found loose bolts on door plugs while inspecting other MAX 9s. This now looks more like a serious factory quality control issue for Boeing.
The plug is a panel used to seal a fuselage cutout for an optional emergency exit door that is used only by a few airlines with high-density seating. Most airlines, inlcuding Alaska and United in the U.S. don’t have a door there, instead installing the plug, which appears to passengers inside as just another window.
The focus of the discussion in the Monday news conference, after investigators examined both the aircraft and the door plug that fell off — it was found Sunday in the backyard of a Portland teacher — was four missing bolts that should have kept the door plug in place.
“We don’t know if there were bolts there, or if they are just missing and departed when the door plug departed … during the violent explosive decompression,” Homendy said.
On Tuesday a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration suggested the return of the MAX 9 to the skies may take a while.
The FAA confirmed that Boeing on Monday sent out initial inspection instructions to airlines that were inadequate. Boeing will have to revise those instructions and the FAA approve them.
“The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service,” the FAA said.
Alaska Airlines said Tuesday it still awaits those approved final inspection and maintenance instructions for its fleet of 65 MAX 9s.
“Until then, the Boeing 737-9 MAX fleet will remain grounded,” Alaska said.
A somber Boeing gathering
On Tuesday, as Boeing attempted to take stock of the impact of the accident, top executives gathered in Renton for an employee safety meeting.
CEO Dave Calhoun . . . . called the accident “a reminder of the seriousness with which we have to approach our work” and said it has created “a very anxious moment” for Boeing’s airline customers. . . .
"If it's Boeing, I ain't going"
The grounds for demanding his resignation are very thin - but he might decide the point of principle is worth making a stand on.
NEW THREAD
"Now read this - a comment sent for publication to a blog post I wrote from a purported for Fujitsu engineer using a dummy email address:
"While I put through no phantom entries myself, I was aware how commonplace it was, and the trivially easy overriding of the rudimentary audit trail embedded in the software too.
"What started as a prank swiftly became a crime, I prefer to believe most of the perpetrators never seriously consider that POL would treat the discrepancies so seriously and initiate prosecutions. It got totally out of hand. 90% of the phantoms were 'against' the agents, thus unjustly enriching POL.
"Did you notice the disproportionate number of victims whose agent locations were in Wales?"
Usual caveats apply. Could be fake, but if there is any substance to it this scandal has a bit to run yet.
I wonder whether the issue of complexity is the problem here. Although on one level the issue is simple - people lied to cover up problems with a product and tried to shift the blame for the problems onto innocent people - the details are quite complex, hard for the public or politicians to cut through especially when the experts can't be trusted. You see similar problems around other complex technical issues - epidemiology, trade with Europe - where politicians either deny responsibility or weaponise the complexity to deliberately misrepresent things.
I wonder whether the real failure here lies with the House of Lords. Isn't the whole point of the unelected House that it is composed of people with expertise who can dig into complex issues, including ones that the public don't currently care about? Isn't this precisely the kind of issue that an effective HoL would have got stuck into a decade ago? Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think I've seen that kind of activity.
January 15 > Iowa - Democratic caucuses, as per wiki:
In this cycle, in-person caucuses focusing only on party business will be held on January 15, but voting on candidates would be done exclusively via mail-in ballots from January 12 until Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024. This was the result of a compromise between the Iowa Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).\
February 6 > Nevada Republican primary - NOTE that state GOP party rules bar any candidate appearing on this primary ballot, from receiving ANY pledged delegates, awarded sole on basis of Feb 8 Republican caucuses.
February 8> Nevada - NOTE no Democratic caucuses; PLUS Virgin Islands = Republican caucus
March 5 Super Tuesday > primaries in Alabama, Alaska (R only), California, Colorado, Iowa (D only), Maine, Mass, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah (D only), Vermont, Virginia
PLUS caucuses in American Samoa and Utah (R only)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/calendar