So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but surely Horizon's reputation has been so sullied by this mess that any prosecution where it was used as evidence is automatically suspect?
And that's leaving aside the fact that the PO's management and legal team were so keen to win prosecutions, they would lie and manipulate in order to win. Again, that puts a massive dose of doubt over any prosecution.
Hence I wonder if anyone prosecuted using (even in a small way) data from the Horizon system can be retried. If I was on a jury now, and part of the prosecution evidence involved Horizon, I would not only ignore the Horizon evidence; I would probably view the entire prosecution with cynicism.
And I'm unsure how point I) on TSE's post "The guilty party genuinely was guilty" can be ascertained *before* a trial?
And BTW, be careful not to be so keen to get a dig in at the government, that you don't start smearing the postmasters.
This is one of the reasons some of the victims are not particularly happy with this settlement (one was interviewed on PM last night). They too would have preferred to have been exonerated through the courts, and found the rationale for being required to sign an innocence statement somewhat insulting.
Indeed, I can understand that, and it might be a 'better' way. But I think it's also kind-of pointless. I can also imagine from what I've heard on the radio that some want it all to go away as quickly and easily as possible, and might not be up to facing a court case.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
Letwin is one of my faves too. Nick Palmer is also a fan, I believe.
Yes. Among other things, the only front-bencher on either side who was willing to listen to argument and withdraw an amendment that he'd put down because he was persuaded that it would be a mistake.
Pre-Brexit we were going to write a book about the EU, setting out agreed facts and offering alternative views of them (he was a mild Brexiteer), but he got promoted and was no longer available for non-partisan publications.
He was active as a banker in Yeltsin cowboy capitalist Russia, I believe?
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
It’s the way it’s always been. Enoch Powell used examples of meeting
“ a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.”
and the story of
“ (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war”
because they were people the reader would identify with and feel sympathetic towards. There’d been plenty of speeches about immigration before that didn’t have an impact at all. No one on here was talking about the post office scandal as much as they are since the tv programme, even though @cyclefree wrote about it a lot just for us. It’s because stories with real characters in are more relatable than the raw facts and legal details
Not to criticise Cyclefree’s work at all, she was ahead of the game. But I must admit I didn’t read any of it until just now. I never really read many of the headers on here
Yep Enoch knew how to grab the headlines. Some say he was taken aback at the reaction to his warnings about white supremacy being under threat in Britain. Others think he was looking for exactly that reaction. You'd have a view, no doubt? One of your hot topics.
A topic I’m interested in, yes. I’d say he was looking for that reaction. Obviously the words ‘white supremacy’ are very loaded, and I don’t agree with the implication he was a white supremacist
He was though. At best you can say he aspired to be a benign white supremacist - his early career ambition was to be Viceroy of India, to which end he learned two Indian languages - but he took it as axiomatic that races could not peacefully coexist on equal terms and that therefore either one had to hold the whip hand or they had to lead separate lives.
I wouldn’t say that meant he considered one to be superior to the other. In fact he answers the question to that end in his interview with David Frost just after the famous speech; when Frost asks him if he thinks one race is superior, morally or intellectually, to another, he says it’s not something that is possible to say, and it doesn’t matter when it comes to immigration
He thought races/religions would struggle to peacefully coexist on equal terms yes, a consequence of his time in pre partitioned India, but that didn’t mean he thought Hindus superior to Muslims or vice versa, for example
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
It’s the way it’s always been. Enoch Powell used examples of meeting
“ a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.”
and the story of
“ (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war”
because they were people the reader would identify with and feel sympathetic towards. There’d been plenty of speeches about immigration before that didn’t have an impact at all. No one on here was talking about the post office scandal as much as they are since the tv programme, even though @cyclefree wrote about it a lot just for us. It’s because stories with real characters in are more relatable than the raw facts and legal details
Not to criticise Cyclefree’s work at all, she was ahead of the game. But I must admit I didn’t read any of it until just now. I never really read many of the headers on here
Yep Enoch knew how to grab the headlines. Some say he was taken aback at the reaction to his warnings about white supremacy being under threat in Britain. Others think he was looking for exactly that reaction. You'd have a view, no doubt? One of your hot topics.
A topic I’m interested in, yes. I’d say he was looking for that reaction. Obviously the words ‘white supremacy’ are very loaded, and I don’t agree with the implication he was a white supremacist
He was though. At best you can say he aspired to be a benign white supremacist - his early career ambition was to be Viceroy of India, to which end he learned two Indian languages - but he took it as axiomatic that races could not peacefully coexist on equal terms and that therefore either one had to hold the whip hand or they had to lead separate lives.
Not sure White Supremacist quite covers it in Enoch Powell's case.
Certainly a British Imperialist, albeit a rather unorthodox one (naturally).
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
As I said below, I think it's quite simple: any case where data from Horizon was used as evidence should be thrown out. The evidence is just too suspect, and so are the PO's lawyers, management and legal team.
Yes, this means that guilty people might be wrongly exonerated. But given the PO's behaviour, it seems the only way.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
Is it not possible to launch appeals where Horizon played a meaningful part in the conviction, with govt assistance, and for the state to offer no evidence and basically let each case go unopposed?
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
The legal system has fucked up very very badly though...
That, too is to a great extent Parliament's responsibility. The rules governing computer evidence were set by statute (during the Blair years), not by the courts.
And the Post Office and its lawyers are very definitely not the legal system. More of a cancer on it.
If I were on one of those juries, told to accept the system evidence unless the defence proved otherwise, I might well have voted guilty, much as I'd like to think otherwise.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
As I said below, I think it's quite simple: any case where data from Horizon was used as evidence should be thrown out. The evidence is just too suspect, and so are the PO's lawyers, management and legal team.
Yes, this means that guilty people might be wrongly exonerated. But given the PO's behaviour, it seems the only way.
You could imagine the fun, if they tried to re-try some cases.
"So your witness was lying about the Horizon system, but you are saying that he was telling the truth about the other evidence?"
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
It’s the way it’s always been. Enoch Powell used examples of meeting
“ a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.”
and the story of
“ (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war”
because they were people the reader would identify with and feel sympathetic towards. There’d been plenty of speeches about immigration before that didn’t have an impact at all. No one on here was talking about the post office scandal as much as they are since the tv programme, even though @cyclefree wrote about it a lot just for us. It’s because stories with real characters in are more relatable than the raw facts and legal details
Not to criticise Cyclefree’s work at all, she was ahead of the game. But I must admit I didn’t read any of it until just now. I never really read many of the headers on here
Yep Enoch knew how to grab the headlines. Some say he was taken aback at the reaction to his warnings about white supremacy being under threat in Britain. Others think he was looking for exactly that reaction. You'd have a view, no doubt? One of your hot topics.
A topic I’m interested in, yes. I’d say he was looking for that reaction. Obviously the words ‘white supremacy’ are very loaded, and I don’t agree with the implication he was a white supremacist
He was though. At best you can say he aspired to be a benign white supremacist - his early career ambition was to be Viceroy of India, to which end he learned two Indian languages - but he took it as axiomatic that races could not peacefully coexist on equal terms and that therefore either one had to hold the whip hand or they had to lead separate lives.
Not sure White Supremacist quite covers it in Enoch Powell's case.
Certainly a British Imperialist, albeit a rather unorthodox one (naturally).
I'd agree that there's no neat definition that fits Powell, certainly not in his entirety. However, I don't think we can escape the conclusion that he believed white governments should rule the world, and that white countries should stay white-dominated and -run.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but surely Horizon's reputation has been so sullied by this mess that any prosecution where it was used as evidence is automatically suspect?
And that's leaving aside the fact that the PO's management and legal team were so keen to win prosecutions, they would lie and manipulate in order to win. Again, that puts a massive dose of doubt over any prosecution.
Hence I wonder if anyone prosecuted using (even in a small way) data from the Horizon system can be retried. If I was on a jury now, and part of the prosecution evidence involved Horizon, I would not only ignore the Horizon evidence; I would probably view the entire prosecution with cynicism.
And I'm unsure how point I) on TSE's post "The guilty party genuinely was guilty" can be ascertained *before* a trial?
And BTW, be careful not to be so keen to get a dig in at the government, that you don't start smearing the postmasters.
This is one of the reasons some of the victims are not particularly happy with this settlement (one was interviewed on PM last night). They too would have preferred to have been exonerated through the courts, and found the rationale for being required to sign an innocence statement somewhat insulting.
Indeed, I can understand that, and it might be a 'better' way. But I think it's also kind-of pointless. I can also imagine from what I've heard on the radio that some want it all to go away as quickly and easily as possible, and might not be up to facing a court case.
Well yes, it's one of those 'i wouldn't start from here' situations.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
Is it not possible to launch appeals where Horizon played a meaningful part in the conviction, with govt assistance, and for the state to offer no evidence and basically let each case go unopposed?
That was apparently not very different from one of the options discussed.But I think it would have meant first establishing, though some test case in the courts, the complete unreliability of any Horizon evidence. Which might well have taken some time.
Otherwise, you're potentially just back to Parliament declaring the convictions quashed.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
Is it not possible to launch appeals where Horizon played a meaningful part in the conviction, with govt assistance, and for the state to offer no evidence and basically let each case go unopposed?
This was basically the line of retired LCJ Lord Thomas a day or two back. The Court of Appeal (Crim Div) and the CCRC are both creations of statute and without inherent jurisdiction, ie they can't make up how it is to be done.
This means a proper process in every case; offering no evidence is irrelevant. Convictions are already in place. The crown can 'not oppose' but the CA can only quash a conviction on a statutory ground upon which it is satisfied. Private info that there has been a Snafu won't do.
Where there has already been an appeal rejected (there are some) the CCRC has to consider it before going back to the CA.
Our legal system is not geared to the degree of injustice here. Terrible though the precedent is I think an Act of Parliament is the better way. But it has substantial difficulties too as we shall soon discover
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
As I said below, I think it's quite simple: any case where data from Horizon was used as evidence should be thrown out. The evidence is just too suspect, and so are the PO's lawyers, management and legal team.
Yes, this means that guilty people might be wrongly exonerated. But given the PO's behaviour, it seems the only way.
You could imagine the fun, if they tried to re-try some cases.
"So your witness was lying about the Horizon system, but you are saying that he was telling the truth about the other evidence?"
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
The current PO witness is a bit unlucky in the sense that he's not really any better or worse than any of the other witnesses, but he's the first one to get thousands of people (at least) watching, rather than hundreds.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
That's exactly the point: this is not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours. But the fact this scandal has happened shows that the mature liberal democracy of ours doesn't actually work when it matters.
And it's the plebs that suffer every time. Perhaps - just perhaps = if some of the people who think they matter - the managers, the lawyers, the politicians etc - start suffering for decisions they made, then they might actually try to do better in future.
It's probably a vain hope; but by God, I hope the people who did this to those people, and those who contributed to ignoring it for so many years, get their comeuppance.
Then they might start trying to make this mature liberal democracy of ours work.
I’m not sure this is a failure of “democracy”.
It’s a failure of a big organisation and a failure of oversight / regulation (it’s actually irrelevant that the post office was state owned - unless we believe that the government(s) were slower to act because of that).
Ultimately - it took too long - but backbench MPs, campaigners and the media got to the right place.
There are absolutely things that can be improved but don’t blame the wrong thing because then you will look for the wrong solutions
Just look at the money they spend on Welfare and how generous some benefits are.
Those buggers getting subsidised holidays through the KDF and all those job creation schemes plus state direction of the economy just prove that Hitler was a socialist.
It is a complete mystery why Tony Blair was the most successful PM of modern history
Some fascinating stuff there. May left of Johnson/not far from Cameron at some points? That must be Brexit/Johnson derangement syndrome. IDS left of Howard? Starmer left of Brown is interesting - it may prove the case, but I'm not convinced so far. Rather gives the lie to Milliband losing for being seen as too left-wing if Starmer triumphs (although that also has as much to do with Cameron versus those who have followed). Blair (just) right of centre, too?
The political compass perception of them would be interesting. Seems like May's authoritarian streak is missed here.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
The legal system has fucked up very very badly though...
That, too is to a great extent Parliament's responsibility. The rules governing computer evidence were set by statute (during the Blair years), not by the courts.
And the Post Office and its lawyers are very definitely not the legal system. More of a cancer on it.
If I were on one of those juries, told to accept the system evidence unless the defence proved otherwise, I might well have voted guilty, much as I'd like to think otherwise.
This is one of the law's characteristic confusions. Juries are always told that they alone are judges of the facts.
They are entitled to hear the account of a transparently honest defendant (Mrs Goggins comes to mind, fresh from a night at Holloway), which contradicts a computer entry, and conclude that she is telling the truth and must be acquitted, even though they are also told that as a matter of law they should assume the computer entry to be correct.
Jurors can and do accept or reject whatever evidence of fact they think they should, even if both sides and the judge tell them differently.
It is this principle which (though not jury related) makes the Rwanda Bill such a mess. Courts judge the facts, not parliament.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
Tunnels are arguably more of a boring subject
I hope I can shield myself from any more puns like that.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
It’s the way it’s always been. Enoch Powell used examples of meeting
“ a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.”
and the story of
“ (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war”
because they were people the reader would identify with and feel sympathetic towards. There’d been plenty of speeches about immigration before that didn’t have an impact at all. No one on here was talking about the post office scandal as much as they are since the tv programme, even though @cyclefree wrote about it a lot just for us. It’s because stories with real characters in are more relatable than the raw facts and legal details
Not to criticise Cyclefree’s work at all, she was ahead of the game. But I must admit I didn’t read any of it until just now. I never really read many of the headers on here
Yep Enoch knew how to grab the headlines. Some say he was taken aback at the reaction to his warnings about white supremacy being under threat in Britain. Others think he was looking for exactly that reaction. You'd have a view, no doubt? One of your hot topics.
A topic I’m interested in, yes. I’d say he was looking for that reaction. Obviously the words ‘white supremacy’ are very loaded, and I don’t agree with the implication he was a white supremacist
He was though. At best you can say he aspired to be a benign white supremacist - his early career ambition was to be Viceroy of India, to which end he learned two Indian languages - but he took it as axiomatic that races could not peacefully coexist on equal terms and that therefore either one had to hold the whip hand or they had to lead separate lives.
Not sure White Supremacist quite covers it in Enoch Powell's case.
Certainly a British Imperialist, albeit a rather unorthodox one (naturally).
I'd agree that there's no neat definition that fits Powell, certainly not in his entirety. However, I don't think we can escape the conclusion that he believed white governments should rule the world, and that white countries should stay white-dominated and -run.
There's a lot to him, some of it contradictory, but his views on Empire, Nationalism, and Immigration taken together indicate somebody steeped in white supremacy racism. Of course this doesn't mean he'd answer "yes" if asked that question directly. An intelligent white supremacist will usually be able to construct alternative rationales. And Powell was very intelligent. He was way brighter than the average bear.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
I know Phnom Penh is more interesting that the PO inquiry. (not being sarcastic).
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but surely Horizon's reputation has been so sullied by this mess that any prosecution where it was used as evidence is automatically suspect?
And that's leaving aside the fact that the PO's management and legal team were so keen to win prosecutions, they would lie and manipulate in order to win. Again, that puts a massive dose of doubt over any prosecution.
Hence I wonder if anyone prosecuted using (even in a small way) data from the Horizon system can be retried. If I was on a jury now, and part of the prosecution evidence involved Horizon, I would not only ignore the Horizon evidence; I would probably view the entire prosecution with cynicism.
And I'm unsure how point I) on TSE's post "The guilty party genuinely was guilty" can be ascertained *before* a trial?
And BTW, be careful not to be so keen to get a dig in at the government, that you don't start smearing the postmasters.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
How is suggesting (following on from TSE's post) that the PO couldn't prosecute associated crimes, smearing postmasters? I suggested as an example "a" sub-Postmaster/ money launderer on the back the point TSE made. How can you extrapolate that I was "smearing the postmasters"?
I am astounded at the educational attainment levels (or lack thereof) that some PB posters claim as their own.
I really worry that Trump not only gets the nomination, but wins as this would be a terrible result for the West and Europe
The Bates v Royal Mail documentary has been the most important public service broadcast I can remember and the anger felt across the country is palpable which must have consequences for those responsible and jail time
I do not think Starmer will have a problem, but certainly Ed Davey seems to be in real danger not least as a post mistress intends standing against him as an Independent
Indeed I would suggest that as there are over 650 SPMs involved they should form an independent party and stand in every constituency at the next GE
Alan Bates will be in our new constituency and if he stood we would vote for him in a heart beat ( quite appropriate for me at present)
From the politicians to the lawyers, to the Royal Mail and others, we need a fundamental change and absolute accountability
Keir Starmer will be PM later this year and he has a daunting task in front of him because if he fails, the fear is the right will rise, as they are across Europe, with untold consequences added to in spades if Trump also becomes POTUS
I intend focusing on my health and family going forward, but truly hope someday things will get better for the vast majority of ordinary people including the SPMs so shamefully abused by the establishment
"... 650 SPMs involved they should form an independent party and stand in every constituency at the next GE"
What if they all joined Reform and stood - that would make it interesting.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
You seriously need to work on your attention span.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
You seriously need to work on your attention span.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
They're not going after Davey either - note that Sunak deflected 30 IQ Lee's "question".
Unless they are spectacularly dim there has to be someone cautioning Sunak. He personally issued a load of new Fujitsu contracts long after this all blew up. One of his Cabinet is married to Mr Fujitsu. The Business Secretary has been at best glacial and at worst obstructionist with the enquiry. And a long line of Tory ministers in a line waiting for the spotlight to be swung in their direction...
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
Tunnels are arguably more of a boring subject
I hope I can shield myself from any more puns like that.
Great, head somewhere else if it gets too much for you.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
That's exactly the point: this is not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours. But the fact this scandal has happened shows that the mature liberal democracy of ours doesn't actually work when it matters.
And it's the plebs that suffer every time. Perhaps - just perhaps = if some of the people who think they matter - the managers, the lawyers, the politicians etc - start suffering for decisions they made, then they might actually try to do better in future.
It's probably a vain hope; but by God, I hope the people who did this to those people, and those who contributed to ignoring it for so many years, get their comeuppance.
Then they might start trying to make this mature liberal democracy of ours work.
I’m not sure this is a failure of “democracy”.
It’s a failure of a big organisation and a failure of oversight / regulation (it’s actually irrelevant that the post office was state owned - unless we believe that the government(s) were slower to act because of that).
Ultimately - it took too long - but backbench MPs, campaigners and the media got to the right place.
There are absolutely things that can be improved but don’t blame the wrong thing because then you will look for the wrong solutions
The sense in which it is a failure of democracy is this. As with Windrush we are faced with an obvious, egregious and abominable failure of the state to act justly. This has been known for years. Every MP reads Private Eye. The injustices were so numerous it must have affected most MPs personally. It is the sort of failure for which people in quite senior positions should be on trial for a number of significant offences and if convicted go to prison (sadly).
At the very top of the tree of our country are our 650 MPs. Parliament, not government, hold supreme authority in the UK. Why did it take the ITV rather than our 650 most powerful people - the democratically appointed ones - to get this matter sorted? This is a massive and continuing failure of democracy.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
The legal system has fucked up very very badly though...
That, too is to a great extent Parliament's responsibility. The rules governing computer evidence were set by statute (during the Blair years), not by the courts.
And the Post Office and its lawyers are very definitely not the legal system. More of a cancer on it.
If I were on one of those juries, told to accept the system evidence unless the defence proved otherwise, I might well have voted guilty, much as I'd like to think otherwise.
Well the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt', which isn't a high test to meet - the defence would just need to create some reasonable doubt. You would just assess it on its merits. There are cases worse than these that have probably led to bigger problems, ie those crimes where juries have convicted solely on DNA evidence when some 'expert' said 'its a one in ten billion match' , so obviously guilty, DNA doesn't lie etc... only now if the tests were redone it would find some additional DNA at the crime scene because of changes in technology and someone innocent has been jailed for a decade or whatever.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
It’s the way it’s always been. Enoch Powell used examples of meeting
“ a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.”
and the story of
“ (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war”
because they were people the reader would identify with and feel sympathetic towards. There’d been plenty of speeches about immigration before that didn’t have an impact at all. No one on here was talking about the post office scandal as much as they are since the tv programme, even though @cyclefree wrote about it a lot just for us. It’s because stories with real characters in are more relatable than the raw facts and legal details
Not to criticise Cyclefree’s work at all, she was ahead of the game. But I must admit I didn’t read any of it until just now. I never really read many of the headers on here
Yep Enoch knew how to grab the headlines. Some say he was taken aback at the reaction to his warnings about white supremacy being under threat in Britain. Others think he was looking for exactly that reaction. You'd have a view, no doubt? One of your hot topics.
A topic I’m interested in, yes. I’d say he was looking for that reaction. Obviously the words ‘white supremacy’ are very loaded, and I don’t agree with the implication he was a white supremacist
He was though. At best you can say he aspired to be a benign white supremacist - his early career ambition was to be Viceroy of India, to which end he learned two Indian languages - but he took it as axiomatic that races could not peacefully coexist on equal terms and that therefore either one had to hold the whip hand or they had to lead separate lives.
Not sure White Supremacist quite covers it in Enoch Powell's case.
Certainly a British Imperialist, albeit a rather unorthodox one (naturally).
I'd agree that there's no neat definition that fits Powell, certainly not in his entirety. However, I don't think we can escape the conclusion that he believed white governments should rule the world, and that white countries should stay white-dominated and -run.
There's a lot to him, some of it contradictory, but his views on Empire, Nationalism, and Immigration taken together indicate somebody steeped in white supremacy racism. Of course this doesn't mean he'd answer "yes" if asked that question directly. An intelligent white supremacist will usually be able to construct alternative rationales. And Powell was very intelligent. He was way brighter than the average bear.
That was once the position of intelligent people.
The human genome had not yet been decoded and, in conjunction with the scientific evidence of Charles Darwin on evolution, selective breeding, and observations on economic and political development of various nations around the world at the time (which of course we know now correlated but were not causated) it looked like it was true.
Very little excuse after the 1940s/1950s, however, people can find it very hard to change such beliefs quickly.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
Doing nothing, and taking no decisions, followed by a massive overreaction when it breaks is the sign of weak government and weak leadership.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
The legal system has fucked up very very badly though...
That, too is to a great extent Parliament's responsibility. The rules governing computer evidence were set by statute (during the Blair years), not by the courts.
And the Post Office and its lawyers are very definitely not the legal system. More of a cancer on it.
If I were on one of those juries, told to accept the system evidence unless the defence proved otherwise, I might well have voted guilty, much as I'd like to think otherwise.
Well the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt', which isn't a high test to meet - the defence would just need to create some reasonable doubt. You would just assess it on its merits. There are cases worse than these that have probably led to bigger problems, ie those crimes where juries have convicted solely on DNA evidence when some 'expert' said 'its a one in ten billion match' , so obviously guilty, DNA doesn't lie etc... only now if the tests were redone it would find some additional DNA at the crime scene because of changes in technology and someone innocent has been jailed for a decade or whatever.
There is no evidence to compare with that of a transparently truthful witness doing their best to tell the truth.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but surely Horizon's reputation has been so sullied by this mess that any prosecution where it was used as evidence is automatically suspect?
And that's leaving aside the fact that the PO's management and legal team were so keen to win prosecutions, they would lie and manipulate in order to win. Again, that puts a massive dose of doubt over any prosecution.
Hence I wonder if anyone prosecuted using (even in a small way) data from the Horizon system can be retried. If I was on a jury now, and part of the prosecution evidence involved Horizon, I would not only ignore the Horizon evidence; I would probably view the entire prosecution with cynicism.
And I'm unsure how point I) on TSE's post "The guilty party genuinely was guilty" can be ascertained *before* a trial?
And BTW, be careful not to be so keen to get a dig in at the government, that you don't start smearing the postmasters.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
How is suggesting (following on from TSE's post) that the PO couldn't prosecute associated crimes, smearing postmasters? I suggested as an example "a" sub-Postmaster/ money launderer on the back the point TSE made. How can you extrapolate that I was "smearing the postmasters"?
I am astounded at the educational attainment levels (or lack thereof) that some PB posters claim as their own.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
To make it clear, you wrote: "So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer...". The vast majority of these cases are f-all to do with drug dealing, money laundering or anything else. The last thing we need are people trying to muddy the waters.
You could easily have made the same point, more reasonably, by saying something like: "There will be some who were criminals, and did defraud the Post Office. Should they get money and their conviction quashed?"
And the answer to which, as I wrote below, is probably yes. Sadly.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Looks like the UK has one of the lowest hard-right polling figures in Europe at the moment.
Something to celebrate. I wonder what a Farage led RUK might poll? Would 15% be out of the question?
RUK are not a 'hard right' party. They want to leave the ECHR and aren't really bothered with climate change but it is not even a vaguely 'hard right' party.
A lot of 'hard right' views are proscribed and outlawed as extremism in the UK, they are put in a similar category to Islamic terrorism. Looking at what is going on in Europe, you have to wonder whether this situation will hold over the longer term.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
People were far more excited about Brexit back then.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but surely Horizon's reputation has been so sullied by this mess that any prosecution where it was used as evidence is automatically suspect?
And that's leaving aside the fact that the PO's management and legal team were so keen to win prosecutions, they would lie and manipulate in order to win. Again, that puts a massive dose of doubt over any prosecution.
Hence I wonder if anyone prosecuted using (even in a small way) data from the Horizon system can be retried. If I was on a jury now, and part of the prosecution evidence involved Horizon, I would not only ignore the Horizon evidence; I would probably view the entire prosecution with cynicism.
And I'm unsure how point I) on TSE's post "The guilty party genuinely was guilty" can be ascertained *before* a trial?
And BTW, be careful not to be so keen to get a dig in at the government, that you don't start smearing the postmasters.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
How is suggesting (following on from TSE's post) that the PO couldn't prosecute associated crimes, smearing postmasters? I suggested as an example "a" sub-Postmaster/ money launderer on the back the point TSE made. How can you extrapolate that I was "smearing the postmasters"?
I am astounded at the educational attainment levels (or lack thereof) that some PB posters claim as their own.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
To make it clear, you wrote: "So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer...". The vast majority of these cases are f-all to do with drug dealing, money laundering or anything else. The last thing we need are people trying to muddy the waters.
You could easily have made the same point, more reasonably, by saying something like: "There will be some who were criminals, and did defraud the Post Office. Should they get money and their conviction quashed?"
And the answer to which, as I wrote below, is probably yes. Sadly.
I'll post exactly as I see fit, so long as it remains within site rules .You interpreted my post in the absurd manner you did, either because you are blindly partisan or a fool.
Smugness isn't a good look and I don't suppose rudeness is either, but if you're sticking with the former, I'll continue forth with the latter.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
On-topic. Youtube has just shown me this 1-minute video of American comic Dave Chapelle lauding Donald Trump for honesty re tax avoidance (from 2016-ish). https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9HsV0Jvqz_Q
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Oh, that's the time-honoured parliamentary act though. Labour almost never calls for resignations - their line is that the entire Government has to go, and so it's in their interest to have squirming Ministers stick around and bring the whole shebang into disrepute. By contrast the LibDems always call for resignations, because they're not going to be the next Government anyway, and it gets them a headline which they wouldn't have otherwise. It happens time and time again, I wouldn't bother over-analysing it.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
A good point was made yesterday that Davey's instinctive response to anything is to call for someone to resign. That's easy to do when you don't have much power and influence. He was a minister in two departments for a total of five years, and in one of those he - at best - made a mistake in not pressing an issue hard enough.
Do I think he should resign? Probably not, on what we know. Does he have questions to answer? Yes. Will he stop calling for others to resign in the future? No, because that's apparently his brand of politics. Id he a hypocrite? Perhaps.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Honestly, as a bunch of shut-ins spending our afternoons arguing on a political betting website, we should probably be a bit careful about accusing others of being bullied at school.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but surely Horizon's reputation has been so sullied by this mess that any prosecution where it was used as evidence is automatically suspect?
And that's leaving aside the fact that the PO's management and legal team were so keen to win prosecutions, they would lie and manipulate in order to win. Again, that puts a massive dose of doubt over any prosecution.
Hence I wonder if anyone prosecuted using (even in a small way) data from the Horizon system can be retried. If I was on a jury now, and part of the prosecution evidence involved Horizon, I would not only ignore the Horizon evidence; I would probably view the entire prosecution with cynicism.
And I'm unsure how point I) on TSE's post "The guilty party genuinely was guilty" can be ascertained *before* a trial?
And BTW, be careful not to be so keen to get a dig in at the government, that you don't start smearing the postmasters.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
How is suggesting (following on from TSE's post) that the PO couldn't prosecute associated crimes, smearing postmasters? I suggested as an example "a" sub-Postmaster/ money launderer on the back the point TSE made. How can you extrapolate that I was "smearing the postmasters"?
I am astounded at the educational attainment levels (or lack thereof) that some PB posters claim as their own.
What a ludicrous final paragraph.
To make it clear, you wrote: "So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer...". The vast majority of these cases are f-all to do with drug dealing, money laundering or anything else. The last thing we need are people trying to muddy the waters.
You could easily have made the same point, more reasonably, by saying something like: "There will be some who were criminals, and did defraud the Post Office. Should they get money and their conviction quashed?"
And the answer to which, as I wrote below, is probably yes. Sadly.
I'll post exactly as I see fit, so long as it remains within site rules .You interpreted my post in the absurd manner you did, either because you are blindly partisan or a fool.
Smugness isn't a good look and I don't suppose rudeness is either, but if you're sticking with the former, I'll continue forth with the latter.
It wasn't absurd, for the reasons I gave.
As for 'blindly partisan or a fool' - I might suggest you look in the mirror. But at least you admit you're rude...
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
From where we are there are no good routes out, and I can't think of a parallel situation - though Windrush has similarities.
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
Is it not possible to launch appeals where Horizon played a meaningful part in the conviction, with govt assistance, and for the state to offer no evidence and basically let each case go unopposed?
This was basically the line of retired LCJ Lord Thomas a day or two back. The Court of Appeal (Crim Div) and the CCRC are both creations of statute and without inherent jurisdiction, ie they can't make up how it is to be done.
This means a proper process in every case; offering no evidence is irrelevant. Convictions are already in place. The crown can 'not oppose' but the CA can only quash a conviction on a statutory ground upon which it is satisfied. Private info that there has been a Snafu won't do.
Where there has already been an appeal rejected (there are some) the CCRC has to consider it before going back to the CA.
Our legal system is not geared to the degree of injustice here. Terrible though the precedent is I think an Act of Parliament is the better way. But it has substantial difficulties too as we shall soon discover
Thanks for that. Perhaps there needs to be some mix of the two then, in this case - at least in by-passing the CCRC, defining Horizon data as unreliable and allowing the cases to be directly referred by the govt?
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Ed Davey was head boy at his private school before getting a first in PPE at Oxford. Like Rishi. (Was David Cameron head boy? I think Boris was but he did not do PPE.)
I have been severely burned by US primary/caucus predictions in the past, so I find myself rather nervous about making a prediction.
But whatever, it’s PB, so I’ll give it my best shot.
Trump will win Iowa. But Haley will overperform. Something like 45T/30H/15-ishDS.
That will get everyone excited about whether Haley can do it, will probably force DeSantis out of the race, and then gives her momentum to go on and win NH.
I suspect she then fails in SC and Trump recovers and starts winning the other states, sadly. But I think for a few weeks we may suddenly get excited by the prospect of a contest, and who knows? I think it’s unlikely Haley can beat Trump - but it’s not impossible.
So one of the suggestions doing the rounds is the CPS prosecutions were where
I) The guilty party genuinely was guilty and importantly
II) Branched out to into other crimes like money laundering which the PO couldn’t prosecute
If this true then Starmer should be safe.
So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer will now get at least £75k taxpayers compo and will have his conviction quashed if Horizon was used in any way shape or form to execute the prosecution?
FFS!
That's what happens when a government which has ignored an issue for well over a decade decides it needs to be sorted sharpish. Nothing to do with an election in the next year, of course.
I am more bothered by the precedent of Parliament deciding it can assume (even if temporarily), the functions of the criminal justice system.
The legal system has fucked up very very badly though...
That, too is to a great extent Parliament's responsibility. The rules governing computer evidence were set by statute (during the Blair years), not by the courts.
And the Post Office and its lawyers are very definitely not the legal system. More of a cancer on it.
If I were on one of those juries, told to accept the system evidence unless the defence proved otherwise, I might well have voted guilty, much as I'd like to think otherwise.
Well the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt', which isn't a high test to meet - the defence would just need to create some reasonable doubt. You would just assess it on its merits. There are cases worse than these that have probably led to bigger problems, ie those crimes where juries have convicted solely on DNA evidence when some 'expert' said 'its a one in ten billion match' , so obviously guilty, DNA doesn't lie etc... only now if the tests were redone it would find some additional DNA at the crime scene because of changes in technology and someone innocent has been jailed for a decade or whatever.
There is no evidence to compare with that of a transparently truthful witness doing their best to tell the truth.
Unfortunately, quite a bit of research into it suggests people are very poor at telling whether or not other people are lying (not far off coin-toss levels), but believe they are great at it.
Underlying that, quite a few liars are very plausible, and quite a few truthful witnesses fall apart under pressure. So there is a good chance the "transparently truthful witness" you describe is a lying shyster, and a good chance that the shifty seeming one is as honest as the day is long (as well of course, as there being a good chance they are just as they appear).
Your best bet is probably to put demeanor out of your mind as far as possible, but that's hard to do in practice.
Sir Keir is answering questions about the post office cases while he was DPP. Seems he’s not so keen on trotting out the line that he was “ultimately responsible ” for every decision made by the CPS in that period anymore.
Now it’s more that ‘He can’t be expected to know about every decision’
"There were possibly three cases [against postmasters] that were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service when I was in post," Sir Keir Starmer says
Labour's leader adds he "wasn't aware of any of these cases" when Director of Public Prosecutions
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Honestly, as a bunch of shut-ins spending our afternoons arguing on a political betting website, we should probably be a bit careful about accusing others of being bullied at school.
It's hardly a moral failing to have been bullied at school, though Casino implies differently. Weird.
I have been severely burned by US primary/caucus predictions in the past, so I find myself rather nervous about making a prediction.
But whatever, it’s PB, so I’ll give it my best shot.
Trump will win Iowa. But Haley will overperform. Something like 45T/30H/15-ishDS.
That will get everyone excited about whether Haley can do it, will probably force DeSantis out of the race, and then gives her momentum to go on and win NH.
I suspect she then fails in SC and Trump recovers and starts winning the other states, sadly. But I think for a few weeks we may suddenly get excited by the prospect of a contest, and who knows? I think it’s unlikely Haley can beat Trump - but it’s not impossible.
DeSantis dropping out largely helps Trump. He will likely endorse Trump, hoping for some plum job in return.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
I've seen some childish posts on here in the past but that takes the biscuit.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
He was lied to by the Post Office management, and had a full in-tray.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
I have been severely burned by US primary/caucus predictions in the past, so I find myself rather nervous about making a prediction.
But whatever, it’s PB, so I’ll give it my best shot.
Trump will win Iowa. But Haley will overperform. Something like 45T/30H/15-ishDS.
That will get everyone excited about whether Haley can do it, will probably force DeSantis out of the race, and then gives her momentum to go on and win NH.
I suspect she then fails in SC and Trump recovers and starts winning the other states, sadly. But I think for a few weeks we may suddenly get excited by the prospect of a contest, and who knows? I think it’s unlikely Haley can beat Trump - but it’s not impossible.
DeSantis dropping out largely helps Trump. He will likely endorse Trump, hoping for some plum job in return.
OTOH, if you’re a GOP primary voter and you’re not voting for Trump already, does that not give a smidgeon of doubt that those voters will move into his camp? If you’re not backing him when he looks insurmountable, will you if he doesn’t?
Just look at the money they spend on Welfare and how generous some benefits are.
Those buggers getting subsidised holidays through the KDF and all those job creation schemes plus state direction of the economy just prove that Hitler was a socialist.
And Nerys complains about welfare spending. A lot of that is state pension. Invented by Fürst Bismarck, that well-known commie and revolutionary.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
Doing nothing, and taking no decisions, followed by a massive overreaction when it breaks is the sign of weak government and weak leadership.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
You'd finger New Labour for that then?
Me, I think Boris Johnson as PM has damaged the public realm quite severely. I accept there might have been a longer term slide going on since well before him but boy did he give it a push.
I have been severely burned by US primary/caucus predictions in the past, so I find myself rather nervous about making a prediction.
But whatever, it’s PB, so I’ll give it my best shot.
Trump will win Iowa. But Haley will overperform. Something like 45T/30H/15-ishDS.
That will get everyone excited about whether Haley can do it, will probably force DeSantis out of the race, and then gives her momentum to go on and win NH.
I suspect she then fails in SC and Trump recovers and starts winning the other states, sadly. But I think for a few weeks we may suddenly get excited by the prospect of a contest, and who knows? I think it’s unlikely Haley can beat Trump - but it’s not impossible.
DeSantis dropping out largely helps Trump. He will likely endorse Trump, hoping for some plum job in return.
I doubt a DeSantis endorsement is worth spit, outside of Florida. And perhaps not much there, either.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
There is, because Bates named him specifically, and he is the most high profile current politician with direct involvement.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Ed Davey was head boy at his private school before getting a first in PPE at Oxford. Like Rishi. (Was David Cameron head boy? I think Boris was but he did not do PPE.)
Doesn't mean he wasn't bullied or unpopular.
Some truly dreadful people became prefects at my school.
I have been severely burned by US primary/caucus predictions in the past, so I find myself rather nervous about making a prediction.
But whatever, it’s PB, so I’ll give it my best shot.
Trump will win Iowa. But Haley will overperform. Something like 45T/30H/15-ishDS.
That will get everyone excited about whether Haley can do it, will probably force DeSantis out of the race, and then gives her momentum to go on and win NH.
I suspect she then fails in SC and Trump recovers and starts winning the other states, sadly. But I think for a few weeks we may suddenly get excited by the prospect of a contest, and who knows? I think it’s unlikely Haley can beat Trump - but it’s not impossible.
It would be interesting, if she had momentum coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire, if she then failed in South Carolina, as that's the state of which she was Governor. I suspect Trump may look to play that one down as a home team banker if he's wobbling after New Hampshire (which would help Haley further there), and shift attention to Super Tuesday. That will be a problem for Haley, as Trump has more capacity to make an impact across multiple large states. By that time, getting to know people and doing a local media blitz isn't enough, and he's just a very well known quantity everywhere.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Honestly, as a bunch of shut-ins spending our afternoons arguing on a political betting website, we should probably be a bit careful about accusing others of being bullied at school.
It's hardly a moral failing to have been bullied at school, though Casino implies differently. Weird.
Davey had tough times in early life but not with bullying. Parental cancer at relatively young ages.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
Um, his former job title was minister for postal affairs and refused to investigate Horizon.
Just look at the money they spend on Welfare and how generous some benefits are.
Those buggers getting subsidised holidays through the KDF and all those job creation schemes plus state direction of the economy just prove that Hitler was a socialist.
And Nerys complains about welfare spending. A lot of that is state pension. Invented by Fürst Bismarck, that well-known commie and revolutionary.
Bismarck did invent State Socialism - which was socialistic measures bolted onto a reactionary worldview, via the idea of noblest oblige. Be nice to your peasants, so they grow your crops better, basically.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
There is, because Bates named him specifically, and he is the most high profile current politician with direct involvement.
Didn't Bates recently say it was wrong to single him out ?
Looks like the UK has one of the lowest hard-right polling figures in Europe at the moment.
Something to celebrate. I wonder what a Farage led RUK might poll? Would 15% be out of the question?
RUK are not a 'hard right' party. They want to leave the ECHR and aren't really bothered with climate change but it is not even a vaguely 'hard right' party.
A lot of 'hard right' views are proscribed and outlawed as extremism in the UK, they are put in a similar category to Islamic terrorism. Looking at what is going on in Europe, you have to wonder whether this situation will hold over the longer term.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
Doing nothing, and taking no decisions, followed by a massive overreaction when it breaks is the sign of weak government and weak leadership.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
You'd finger New Labour for that then?
Me, I think Boris Johnson as PM has damaged the public realm quite severely. I accept there might have been a longer term slide going on since well before him but boy did he give it a push.
New Labour started the culture of SPADs, spin doctors and researchers bleaching into politics and gesture politics. Candidate selection became woeful.
The Tory party got no better post 1997, because anyone serious started to leave or walk away. Then, they got into the A-list (Z-list) stuff and selected some truly awful candidates.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
He was lied to by the Post Office management, and had a full in-tray.
Comments
Dealing in a mass way with so many convictions and guilty pleas to be reexamined to judicial standard would take ages. Of course it should have been completed years ago but it wasn't. So, terrible though it is, the legislative route is probably the only option. However, further delays are likely, as just as the judicial system would have to go through all the processes to deal with all these cases, so legislation will have to have a boundary setting mechanism, examining the question: Which cases count. Who is in, Who is out, and On What Criteria. This will take time. What an abomination of a mess.
Around 45 mins in here
https://youtu.be/qdr96F5PfMg?si=GnAU2CigUfGSNtDV
He thought races/religions would struggle to peacefully coexist on equal terms yes, a consequence of his time in pre partitioned India, but that didn’t mean he thought Hindus superior to Muslims or vice versa, for example
Certainly a British Imperialist, albeit a rather unorthodox one (naturally).
Yes, this means that guilty people might be wrongly exonerated. But given the PO's behaviour, it seems the only way.
This attempt suits them as much as following my cricket tips would Betfair.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/cameron-green-named-in-test-xi-with-steven-smith-to-open-matthew-renshaw-added-to-the-squad-1416116
"So your witness was lying about the Horizon system, but you are saying that he was telling the truth about the other evidence?"
Otherwise, you're potentially just back to Parliament declaring the convictions quashed.
This means a proper process in every case; offering no evidence is irrelevant. Convictions are already in place. The crown can 'not oppose' but the CA can only quash a conviction on a statutory ground upon which it is satisfied. Private info that there has been a Snafu won't do.
Where there has already been an appeal rejected (there are some) the CCRC has to consider it before going back to the CA.
Our legal system is not geared to the degree of injustice here. Terrible though the precedent is I think an Act of Parliament is the better way. But it has substantial difficulties too as we shall soon discover
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
It’s a failure of a big organisation and a failure of oversight / regulation (it’s actually irrelevant that the post office was state owned - unless we believe that the government(s) were slower to act because of that).
Ultimately - it took too long - but backbench MPs, campaigners and the media got to the right place.
There are absolutely things that can be improved but don’t blame the wrong thing because then you will look for the wrong solutions
The political compass perception of them would be interesting. Seems like May's authoritarian streak is missed here.
Iran seizes oil tanker St Nikolas near Oman - reports
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67948119
They are entitled to hear the account of a transparently honest defendant (Mrs Goggins comes to mind, fresh from a night at Holloway), which contradicts a computer entry, and conclude that she is telling the truth and must be acquitted, even though they are also told that as a matter of law they should assume the computer entry to be correct.
Jurors can and do accept or reject whatever evidence of fact they think they should, even if both sides and the judge tell them differently.
It is this principle which (though not jury related) makes the Rwanda Bill such a mess. Courts judge the facts, not parliament.
How is suggesting (following on from TSE's post) that the PO couldn't prosecute associated crimes, smearing postmasters? I suggested as an example "a" sub-Postmaster/ money launderer on the back the point TSE made. How can you extrapolate that I was "smearing the postmasters"?
I am astounded at the educational attainment levels (or lack thereof) that some PB posters claim as their own.
What if they all joined Reform and stood - that would make it interesting.
Unless they are spectacularly dim there has to be someone cautioning Sunak. He personally issued a load of new Fujitsu contracts long after this all blew up. One of his Cabinet is married to Mr Fujitsu. The Business Secretary has been at best glacial and at worst obstructionist with the enquiry. And a long line of Tory ministers in a line waiting for the spotlight to be swung in their direction...
At the very top of the tree of our country are our 650 MPs. Parliament, not government, hold supreme authority in the UK. Why did it take the ITV rather than our 650 most powerful people - the democratically appointed ones - to get this matter sorted? This is a massive and continuing failure of democracy.
The human genome had not yet been decoded and, in conjunction with the scientific evidence of Charles Darwin on evolution, selective breeding, and observations on economic and political development of various nations around the world at the time (which of course we know now correlated but were not causated) it looked like it was true.
Very little excuse after the 1940s/1950s, however, people can find it very hard to change such beliefs quickly.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
To make it clear, you wrote: "So a drug dealing sub-Postmaster / money launderer...". The vast majority of these cases are f-all to do with drug dealing, money laundering or anything else. The last thing we need are people trying to muddy the waters.
You could easily have made the same point, more reasonably, by saying something like: "There will be some who were criminals, and did defraud the Post Office. Should they get money and their conviction quashed?"
And the answer to which, as I wrote below, is probably yes. Sadly.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
A lot of 'hard right' views are proscribed and outlawed as extremism in the UK, they are put in a similar category to Islamic terrorism. Looking at what is going on in Europe, you have to wonder whether this situation will hold over the longer term.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Smugness isn't a good look and I don't suppose rudeness is either, but if you're sticking with the former, I'll continue forth with the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9HsV0Jvqz_Q
I bet he was bullied at school.
Do I think he should resign? Probably not, on what we know. Does he have questions to answer? Yes. Will he stop calling for others to resign in the future? No, because that's apparently his brand of politics. Id he a hypocrite? Perhaps.
As for 'blindly partisan or a fool' - I might suggest you look in the mirror. But at least you admit you're rude...
But whatever, it’s PB, so I’ll give it my best shot.
Trump will win Iowa. But Haley will overperform. Something like 45T/30H/15-ishDS.
That will get everyone excited about whether Haley can do it, will probably force DeSantis out of the race, and then gives her momentum to go on and win NH.
I suspect she then fails in SC and Trump recovers and starts winning the other states, sadly. But I think for a few weeks we may suddenly get excited by the prospect of a contest, and who knows? I think it’s unlikely Haley can beat Trump - but it’s not impossible.
Underlying that, quite a few liars are very plausible, and quite a few truthful witnesses fall apart under pressure. So there is a good chance the "transparently truthful witness" you describe is a lying shyster, and a good chance that the shifty seeming one is as honest as the day is long (as well of course, as there being a good chance they are just as they appear).
Your best bet is probably to put demeanor out of your mind as far as possible, but that's hard to do in practice.
Now it’s more that ‘He can’t be expected to know about every decision’
"There were possibly three cases [against postmasters] that were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service when I was in post," Sir Keir Starmer says
Labour's leader adds he "wasn't aware of any of these cases" when Director of Public Prosecutions
Latest bbc.in/41TnlrG
https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1745474925190652034?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Weird.
Me, I think Boris Johnson as PM has damaged the public realm quite severely. I accept there might have been a longer term slide going on since well before him but boy did he give it a push.
And perhaps not much there, either.
Some truly dreadful people became prefects at my school.
It was literally his job.
It’s one thing reading the pile-on by Tory client journalists, it’s another thing to see it re-iterated by intelligent posters.
The Tory party got no better post 1997, because anyone serious started to leave or walk away. Then, they got into the A-list (Z-list) stuff and selected some truly awful candidates.