Record low temperatures forecast for Iowa’s polling day – politicalbetting.com

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

Eabhal said:

This is great: https://twitter.com/PSOSEdinburgh/status/1745807263841845732?t=0qY-eckyNd7DT4Z7aReMDw&s=19

1) Defibrillator stolen from Police Scotland divisional headquarters in Edinburgh
2) Takes 2 months for cops to investigate a theft from their own shop
3) CCTV at HQ is potato quality

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

tlg86 said:

Surely anyone who is prosecuted for the post office scandal will argue it will be impossible for them to get a fair trial. Whether that washes, I don’t know, but they’re bound to try it.

Why would they be able to argue that, any more than - for example - someone who is charged with committing a murder that has excited widespread outrage?

They can't. This is always brought up every time there is a crime which is in the news and it never happens. First, there will be no prosecutions until the Inquiry is done. Then the police and CPS will need to review all the evidence which has come out of the Inquiry and may also need to interview others. So I doubt there will be prosecutions this year. Next year maybe. If they didn't happen until 2026 I would not be surprised.

Also remember that the burden of proof for conspiracy charges is high.

Are there any clawback provisions in the bonuses awarded to PO managers? There ought to be.

I must say that the word "bonus" now sets my teeth on edge in the same way as the phrase "lessons learned". Corporate looting would be more accurate.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

This is a great question on TwiX

(Snip)
What's your dumb "made it" dream that you finally accomplished?”

(snip)

Not sure if this counts, but after years of pain, and of being told I might never walk properly again, completing the Pennine Way, 15 months after my last operation.

Carnyx said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

What Post Minister signed that off?

Hmmmmmm ... a good point!

'The largest determinant of bosses' pay is a measure the Post Office calls "trading profit", which excludes the money set aside to compensate scandal victims, thereby increasing the pay of executives.

Chief executive Nick Read received a salary of £436,000 in the year ended 2022, plus a bonus of £137,000, as the Post Office was deemed to have recorded an above target trading profit if compensation provisions were ignored.

Mr Neidle said: "Bonuses have been paid to the executive team based on an apparent level of profitability which does not exist. If a public company missed an obvious tax point that made the business insolvent the shareholders would be demanding the CFO and CEOs head on a platter".'

If that's for the FY2021-2022, then it sure wasn't Mr Davey who signed it off. But someone wearing a big blue rosette. In (presumably) fairly full knowledge of the situation more generally.

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

The difficulty is that I bet the Post Office did not think of these payments or any part of them - or describe them internally as - repayment of monies owed. That would have meant accepting that they were never due, with all the civil and criminal legal consequences that flow from that. Plus I doubt that they kept an accurate record. So they're stuffed.

There would be a certain irony if after all of this, the actual charge brought against the Post Office’s managers was one of false accounting.

Made my morning, Doc!

Yes, and it could conceivably happen.

With the Post Office defendants having to argue that, no, the prosecution couldn't possibly rely on anything in the Post Office's published accounts or other records because the accounting system was wrong, unreliable, not to be trusted, has gazillions of glitches etc.,.

Honestly, there is something wonderfully appropriate in our biggest scandal being about the Post Office. As if Victoria Wood had decided to write a British version of the Sopranos and thought: "Now, where will I set it? Ah yes, the Post Office!"

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

The difficulty is that I bet the Post Office did not think of these payments or any part of them - or describe them internally as - repayment of monies owed. That would have meant accepting that they were never due, with all the civil and criminal legal consequences that flow from that. Plus I doubt that they kept an accurate record. So they're stuffed.

There would be a certain irony if after all of this, the actual charge brought against the Post Office’s managers was one of false accounting.

Made my morning, Doc!

Yes, and it could conceivably happen.

With the Post Office defendants having to argue that, no, the prosecution couldn't possibly rely on anything in the Post Office's published accounts or other records because the accounting system was wrong, unreliable, not to be trusted, has gazillions of glitches etc.,.

Honestly, there is something wonderfully appropriate in our biggest scandal being about the Post Office. As if Victoria Wood had decided to write a British version of the Sopranos and thought: "Now, where will I set it? Ah yes, the Post Office!"

No. No no no. The biggest scandal is the Asian grooming scandal. I know people don’t like to talk about it and it makes everyone uncomfortable - but it is the case. 100,000 underage girls raped over decades

That absolutely dwarfs the PO scandal (as bad as that is). But the bitter truth is the grooming scandal is so huge and so overwhelming, and raises so many difficult questions that most would rather avoid, it will never be truly addressed

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

This is a great question on TwiX

(Snip)
What's your dumb "made it" dream that you finally accomplished?”

(snip)

Not sure if this counts, but after years of pain, and of being told I might never walk properly again, completing the Pennine Way, 15 months after my last operation.

Bravo

For me it was re-building my life, and indeed having a great life, after suffering a catastrophic accident when I was 19.

There's barely a day goes by when I don't reflect on that. It was only made possible by living in a first class developed country since WW2.

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

The difficulty is that I bet the Post Office did not think of these payments or any part of them - or describe them internally as - repayment of monies owed. That would have meant accepting that they were never due, with all the civil and criminal legal consequences that flow from that. Plus I doubt that they kept an accurate record. So they're stuffed.

There would be a certain irony if after all of this, the actual charge brought against the Post Office’s managers was one of false accounting.

Made my morning, Doc!

Yes, and it could conceivably happen.

With the Post Office defendants having to argue that, no, the prosecution couldn't possibly rely on anything in the Post Office's published accounts or other records because the accounting system was wrong, unreliable, not to be trusted, has gazillions of glitches etc.,.

Honestly, there is something wonderfully appropriate in our biggest scandal being about the Post Office. As if Victoria Wood had decided to write a British version of the Sopranos and thought: "Now, where will I set it? Ah yes, the Post Office!"

No. No no no. The biggest scandal is the Asian grooming scandal. I know people don’t like to talk about it and it makes everyone uncomfortable - but it is the case. 100,000 underage girls raped over decades

That absolutely dwarfs the PO scandal (as bad as that is). But the bitter truth is the grooming scandal is so huge and so overwhelming, and raises so many difficult questions that most would rather avoid, it will never be truly addressed

Who would they get to play gotch eyed hero of the tale Nick Griffin?

Cyclefree said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

On your point

"Caretaker administration beckons?"

Surely a magnificent opportunity to reward some deserving Conservative donors.

Why not an actual caretaker? They could hardly do any worse.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

The difficulty is that I bet the Post Office did not think of these payments or any part of them - or describe them internally as - repayment of monies owed. That would have meant accepting that they were never due, with all the civil and criminal legal consequences that flow from that. Plus I doubt that they kept an accurate record. So they're stuffed.

There would be a certain irony if after all of this, the actual charge brought against the Post Office’s managers was one of false accounting.

Made my morning, Doc!

Yes, and it could conceivably happen.

With the Post Office defendants having to argue that, no, the prosecution couldn't possibly rely on anything in the Post Office's published accounts or other records because the accounting system was wrong, unreliable, not to be trusted, has gazillions of glitches etc.,.

Honestly, there is something wonderfully appropriate in our biggest scandal being about the Post Office. As if Victoria Wood had decided to write a British version of the Sopranos and thought: "Now, where will I set it? Ah yes, the Post Office!"

No. No no no. The biggest scandal is the Asian grooming scandal. I know people don’t like to talk about it and it makes everyone uncomfortable - but it is the case. 100,000 underage girls raped over decades

That absolutely dwarfs the PO scandal (as bad as that is). But the bitter truth is the grooming scandal is so huge and so overwhelming, and raises so many difficult questions that most would rather avoid, it will never be truly addressed

Leon said:

This is a great question on TwiX

“When I was a kid, I was so envious of my well off friends who had fridges with ice dispensers. We couldn't afford those nice fridges so I waited overnight for my ice trays to freeze to get ice cubes.

My dumb "made it" dream was to get one of those fridges someday. Now I finally have one and I feel so lucky every time I get ice for my water. It's a simple pleasure and it helps me realize I don't need much to be happy.

What's your dumb "made it" dream that you finally accomplished?”

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

tlg86 said:

Surely anyone who is prosecuted for the post office scandal will argue it will be impossible for them to get a fair trial. Whether that washes, I don’t know, but they’re bound to try it.

Why would they be able to argue that, any more than - for example - someone who is charged with committing a murder that has excited widespread outrage?

They can't. This is always brought up every time there is a crime which is in the news and it never happens. First, there will be no prosecutions until the Inquiry is done. Then the police and CPS will need to review all the evidence which has come out of the Inquiry and may also need to interview others. So I doubt there will be prosecutions this year. Next year maybe. If they didn't happen until 2026 I would not be surprised.

Also remember that the burden of proof for conspiracy charges is high.

Are there any clawback provisions in the bonuses awarded to PO managers? There ought to be.

I must say that the word "bonus" now sets my teeth on edge in the same way as the phrase "lessons learned". Corporate looting would be more accurate.

The PO Scandal has finally caught the zeitgeist, despite many of us knowing about it for years. In my case it was from Private Eye that I found the story a decade or so ago.

The ITV drama made a human story out of what is superficially boring: computers, accounting and sub-post offices. It is a very emblematic story of how Britain (and for that matter many other countries) has evolved: ordinary people doing ordinary jobs being screwed over by a system designed not for the common interest, but rather for the financial interests at the top and their political friends.

It strikes a chord with that populist feeling, and feeds the suspicion that any "reform" that we are going to see in the way the country is run will screw over the common folk again in favour of those lobbying interests.

Marina Hyde has an interesting quote from Alan Bates in her column today:

"Interviewed by the Times last weekend at home in Colwyn Bay, Bates assured the paper that it didn’t matter he’d never been paid for his work, on top of having had his business destroyed by the Post Office, because “you don’t need a ridiculous amount of money” in life."

It's not about Ice cube dispensers, it it about life lived well, and that is all about values not valuables.

This is hardly the Wisdom of Confucius. It’s obvious to anyone over 25 with a brain (tho it is worth repeating). No one ever died thinking “oh I wish I’d had a bigger TV”. People die regretting missed experiences - family, friends, travel, creativity

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

tlg86 said:

Surely anyone who is prosecuted for the post office scandal will argue it will be impossible for them to get a fair trial. Whether that washes, I don’t know, but they’re bound to try it.

Why would they be able to argue that, any more than - for example - someone who is charged with committing a murder that has excited widespread outrage?

They can't. This is always brought up every time there is a crime which is in the news and it never happens. First, there will be no prosecutions until the Inquiry is done. Then the police and CPS will need to review all the evidence which has come out of the Inquiry and may also need to interview others. So I doubt there will be prosecutions this year. Next year maybe. If they didn't happen until 2026 I would not be surprised.

Also remember that the burden of proof for conspiracy charges is high.

Are there any clawback provisions in the bonuses awarded to PO managers? There ought to be.

I must say that the word "bonus" now sets my teeth on edge in the same way as the phrase "lessons learned". Corporate looting would be more accurate.

The PO Scandal has finally caught the zeitgeist, despite many of us knowing about it for years. In my case it was from Private Eye that I found the story a decade or so ago.

The ITV drama made a human story out of what is superficially boring: computers, accounting and sub-post offices. It is a very emblematic story of how Britain (and for that matter many other countries) has evolved: ordinary people doing ordinary jobs being screwed over by a system designed not for the common interest, but rather for the financial interests at the top and their political friends.

It strikes a chord with that populist feeling, and feeds the suspicion that any "reform" that we are going to see in the way the country is run will screw over the common folk again in favour of those lobbying interests.

That's why it's reasonated.

It speaks to every part of the political spectrum and strikes at that fundamental decent British sense of fair play.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

tlg86 said:

Surely anyone who is prosecuted for the post office scandal will argue it will be impossible for them to get a fair trial. Whether that washes, I don’t know, but they’re bound to try it.

Why would they be able to argue that, any more than - for example - someone who is charged with committing a murder that has excited widespread outrage?

They can't. This is always brought up every time there is a crime which is in the news and it never happens. First, there will be no prosecutions until the Inquiry is done. Then the police and CPS will need to review all the evidence which has come out of the Inquiry and may also need to interview others. So I doubt there will be prosecutions this year. Next year maybe. If they didn't happen until 2026 I would not be surprised.

Also remember that the burden of proof for conspiracy charges is high.

Are there any clawback provisions in the bonuses awarded to PO managers? There ought to be.

I must say that the word "bonus" now sets my teeth on edge in the same way as the phrase "lessons learned". Corporate looting would be more accurate.

The PO Scandal has finally caught the zeitgeist, despite many of us knowing about it for years. In my case it was from Private Eye that I found the story a decade or so ago.

The ITV drama made a human story out of what is superficially boring: computers, accounting and sub-post offices. It is a very emblematic story of how Britain (and for that matter many other countries) has evolved: ordinary people doing ordinary jobs being screwed over by a system designed not for the common interest, but rather for the financial interests at the top and their political friends.

It strikes a chord with that populist feeling, and feeds the suspicion that any "reform" that we are going to see in the way the country is run will screw over the common folk again in favour of those lobbying interests.

That's why it's reasonated.

It speaks to every part of the political spectrum and strikes at that fundamental decent British sense of fair play.

The husband of one of the jailed postmasters (mistresses?) was on R4 this morning recounting how he was beaten up three times after a 'pregnant thief jailed' headline in the local paper.
I feel it's very much swings and roundabouts on the fundamental decent British sense of fair play front.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Andy_JS said:

Keep calmer and vote Starmer.

If you like gravy, vote Davey...

If you like Lurpak, vote Sunak.

If you prefer Anchor, vote…

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

I have a weird and tremendous foreboding

Have you eaten a dog again?

No, I’m sitting by the pool at Raffles (Phnom Penh) considering having a gin sling

It may simply be the overly spicy but delicious Pho I consumed last night. Touch of the Cochin Collywobbles

However I got this sudden flash of apprehensive horror. Something even worse than Covid is coming down the line. This decade. The 2020s are not done with us yet

Maybe I should have that gin sling

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

The current Post Office Board - https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/governance/our-structure/our-board

The Director of Communications has been suspended after recordings came out of him saying, after the Court of Appeal had overturned a number of convictions, that the subpostmasters were all crooks etc.,.

The company is still in denial.

Looks more like it's in deep shit rather than in de Nile.

One thought that occurs to me is that the Post Office has been the cornerstone of government efforts to save local banking services as the banks find every excuse to close down local branches. Where's that going to end up now?

Cyclefree said:

Interesting little snippet from the Post Office Board:

Simon Jeffreys, a non-Executive Director and Chair of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee is also -

"Simon chairs the Board of St James Place International plc, and is Chair of the Audit and Risk Committees of Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust plc, SimCorp A/S, a listed Danish financial services software company, and the Crown Prosecution Service."

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

The difficulty is that I bet the Post Office did not think of these payments or any part of them - or describe them internally as - repayment of monies owed. That would have meant accepting that they were never due, with all the civil and criminal legal consequences that flow from that. Plus I doubt that they kept an accurate record. So they're stuffed.

There would be a certain irony if after all of this, the actual charge brought against the Post Office’s managers was one of false accounting.

At this rate, Rishi is going to have to declare a bank holiday for the day that Paula Vennells gives evidence to the Horizon Inquiry.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Interesting little snippet from the Post Office Board:

Simon Jeffreys, a non-Executive Director and Chair of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee is also -

"Simon chairs the Board of St James Place International plc, and is Chair of the Audit and Risk Committees of Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust plc, SimCorp A/S, a listed Danish financial services software company, and the Crown Prosecution Service."

Lol!

Did I hear someone say NU10K?

Benpointer said:

Is the PO scandal hurting the LibDems? Nope:

As the dust settles on the Post Office scandal, #Labour appears to have stamped its authority in the #polls – retaining a commanding 22-point lead for the second consecutive week.

🔴 Lab 45% (-2)
🔵 Con 23% (-2)
🟠 LD 11% (+2)
⚪ Ref 11% (+1)
🟢 Green 5% (NC)
🟡 SNP 3% (+1)



https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1745834526255833469?s=20

MJW said:

Benpointer said:

Is the PO scandal hurting the LibDems? Nope:

As the dust settles on the Post Office scandal, #Labour appears to have stamped its authority in the #polls – retaining a commanding 22-point lead for the second consecutive week.

🔴 Lab 45% (-2)
🔵 Con 23% (-2)
🟠 LD 11% (+2)
⚪ Ref 11% (+1)
🟢 Green 5% (NC)
🟡 SNP 3% (+1)



https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1745834526255833469?s=20

Difficult to see how it would - the Lib Dems are more or less where they have been stuck for the past decade - core vote post-coalition plus the small number of staunch pro-Europeans for whom Labour's need to compromise with the electorate is annoying, and those who are anti-Tory in places where Labour just doesn't really exist.

Their likely problem is that if Davey is still leader and affected by it then it will be difficult to capitalise on the desire to 'get the bastards out' as we move into election mode and create the kind of pincer movement in the so-called 'Blue Wall' that Home Counties One Nation Tories have dreaded.

MJW said:

Benpointer said:

Is the PO scandal hurting the LibDems? Nope:

As the dust settles on the Post Office scandal, #Labour appears to have stamped its authority in the #polls – retaining a commanding 22-point lead for the second consecutive week.

🔴 Lab 45% (-2)
🔵 Con 23% (-2)
🟠 LD 11% (+2)
⚪ Ref 11% (+1)
🟢 Green 5% (NC)
🟡 SNP 3% (+1)



https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1745834526255833469?s=20

Difficult to see how it would - the Lib Dems are more or less where they have been stuck for the past decade - core vote post-coalition plus the small number of staunch pro-Europeans for whom Labour's need to compromise with the electorate is annoying, and those who are anti-Tory in places where Labour just doesn't really exist.

Their likely problem is that if Davey is still leader and affected by it then it will be difficult to capitalise on the desire to 'get the bastards out' as we move into election mode and create the kind of pincer movement in the so-called 'Blue Wall' that Home Counties One Nation Tories have dreaded.

Leon said:

Right. Time for a swim. Hopefully it will dispel this weird sense that Something Wicked This Way Comes

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

tlg86 said:

Surely anyone who is prosecuted for the post office scandal will argue it will be impossible for them to get a fair trial. Whether that washes, I don’t know, but they’re bound to try it.

Why would they be able to argue that, any more than - for example - someone who is charged with committing a murder that has excited widespread outrage?

They can't. This is always brought up every time there is a crime which is in the news and it never happens. First, there will be no prosecutions until the Inquiry is done. Then the police and CPS will need to review all the evidence which has come out of the Inquiry and may also need to interview others. So I doubt there will be prosecutions this year. Next year maybe. If they didn't happen until 2026 I would not be surprised.

Also remember that the burden of proof for conspiracy charges is high.

Are there any clawback provisions in the bonuses awarded to PO managers? There ought to be.

I must say that the word "bonus" now sets my teeth on edge in the same way as the phrase "lessons learned". Corporate looting would be more accurate.

The PO Scandal has finally caught the zeitgeist, despite many of us knowing about it for years. In my case it was from Private Eye that I found the story a decade or so ago.

The ITV drama made a human story out of what is superficially boring: computers, accounting and sub-post offices. It is a very emblematic story of how Britain (and for that matter many other countries) has evolved: ordinary people doing ordinary jobs being screwed over by a system designed not for the common interest, but rather for the financial interests at the top and their political friends.

It strikes a chord with that populist feeling, and feeds the suspicion that any "reform" that we are going to see in the way the country is run will screw over the common folk again in favour of those lobbying interests.

That's why it's reasonated.

It speaks to every part of the political spectrum and strikes at that fundamental decent British sense of fair play.

The husband of one of the jailed postmasters (mistresses?) was on R4 this morning recounting how he was beaten up three times after a 'pregnant thief jailed' headline in the local paper.
I feel it's very much swings and roundabouts on the fundamental decent British sense of fair play front.

Also rather lacking on PB of late. Notably a rather partisan rush to blame Mr Davey and SKS for everything right down to the exact shade of beige used for the wpbs (PO staff for the use of).

Cyclefree said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

On your point

"Caretaker administration beckons?"

Surely a magnificent opportunity to reward some deserving Conservative donors.

Why not an actual caretaker? They could hardly do any worse.

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

Right. Time for a swim. Hopefully it will dispel this weird sense that Something Wicked This Way Comes

Might just be Cambodia. Much as it clutches to hedonism to run away from its recent history, it's still there. Lurking. Some weird primeval evil crawled out the ground and destroyed its society. It was inexplicable; and that makes it so difficult to believe it has really been expunged.

All while we were listening to Wham and Frankie Goes to Hollywood.

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

The difficulty is that I bet the Post Office did not think of these payments or any part of them - or describe them internally as - repayment of monies owed. That would have meant accepting that they were never due, with all the civil and criminal legal consequences that flow from that. Plus I doubt that they kept an accurate record. So they're stuffed.

There would be a certain irony if after all of this, the actual charge brought against the Post Office’s managers was one of false accounting.

Cyclefree said:

Anyway I just mentioned the info about the director of the PO being on the Board of the CPS and his response was:

"Don't they have enough of these duffers to go round? Do they have to do double duffer duty?"

I mean, that's the icing on the cake, isn't it - we're running out of duffers.

Malmesbury said:

Cyclefree said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

On your point

"Caretaker administration beckons?"

Surely a magnificent opportunity to reward some deserving Conservative donors.

Why not an actual caretaker? They could hardly do any worse.

I’ve got an idea.

There’s this chap called Bates. Could do with a good job, as I understand it. Some hands on experience in Post Office management….

Malmesbury said:

Cyclefree said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

On your point

"Caretaker administration beckons?"

Surely a magnificent opportunity to reward some deserving Conservative donors.

Why not an actual caretaker? They could hardly do any worse.

I’ve got an idea.

There’s this chap called Bates. Could do with a good job, as I understand it. Some hands on experience in Post Office management….

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

What Post Minister signed that off?

Hmmmmmm ... a good point!

'The largest determinant of bosses' pay is a measure the Post Office calls "trading profit", which excludes the money set aside to compensate scandal victims, thereby increasing the pay of executives.

Chief executive Nick Read received a salary of £436,000 in the year ended 2022, plus a bonus of £137,000, as the Post Office was deemed to have recorded an above target trading profit if compensation provisions were ignored.

Mr Neidle said: "Bonuses have been paid to the executive team based on an apparent level of profitability which does not exist. If a public company missed an obvious tax point that made the business insolvent the shareholders would be demanding the CFO and CEOs head on a platter".'

If that's for the FY2021-2022, then it sure wasn't Mr Davey who signed it off. But someone wearing a big blue rosette. In (presumably) fairly full knowledge of the situation more generally.

A couple of background issues here, which one day will be a scandal. Firstly, how it is that stuff which a single man accountant doing tax returns for little old ladies over a flower shop would spot in moments is utterly opaque to the accountants and, more importantly auditors, of the PO.

Secondly, the back street one man garage in Scunthorpe who struggles to do VAT/tax returns on time, it seems to me, is treated with a heavier hand by the HMRC than smooth operators who owe it £100,000,000.

The current auditors = PwC. Since 2018.

IanB2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Cyclefree said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Well this thread is fun ....

https://x.com/danneidle/status/1745920610893434993?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

It looks as if the Post Office has been claiming the compensation payments made to subpostmasters as tax deductible expenses. HMRC disagrees and is arguing that the PO needs to pony up ca. £100 m in tax.

Of course this is one bit of the government paying money to another bit. But still - delightful to see a body prosecuting others for false accounting not being able to get its tax affairs in order.

'While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064

Their entire accounts for the past 20 years are going to have to be rewritten, aren't they.

The whole thing will probably be worth about £3.16 by the end and the whole shebang can be bought with loose change when going to your local branch to buy some balloons, sellotape and a birthday card for a friend's 3 year old.

Bagsy first in the queue: I will enjoy sacking everyone.

I just read this bit of news and my eyes were out on stalks. It is an absolutely bog standard tax principle that compensation payments of this kind are not a deductible expense. You don't get tax relief for breaking the law. Any High Street accountant could tell you that. What were they thinking? How did the auditors not point it out to them?

As for bonuses based on pre-compensation payents, they're 'aving a larf, surely? The way they've performed,they should be paying us, not the other way round.

I should say the PO must be technically insolvent as of now. There is no way it is going to be able meet its liabilities when they are all totted up. Of course that means the bill will be passed on to me and thee, but hopefully we will get some say in the matter of retribution. I'd go for garotting of those responsible, starting with the Board and working my way down.

Others, Ms Cyclefree, might want something a bit harsher, but I'm a tolerant soul.

The whole problem is they were not thinking. Not capable of it, you see.

The argument they could use is the same one Bates uses - that the payments are (significantly) reimbursement. The original shortfalls were made good by the SPMRs and generated taxable income that added to the bottom line. Hence reversing this out should be deductible.

Of course, this won’t, and shouldn’t, fly. But it’s a way of looking at it.

To the extent that it is returning what was never theirs in the first place I think that is ok. The accounts really ought to be rewritten but then since this is a Government owned company it wouldn't make sense to be too particular about it. The real problem is that the PO doesn't know the figures. It probably lost track of them years ago, if indeed it ever had track. (The whole organisation seems utterly shambolic so that would hardly be surprising.)

The punitive element, which one assumes now will be large, has got no chance of getting past HMRC, public body or not.

Frankly you have to question whether it is still a going concern in the normal sense. Caretaker administration beckons?

I really don't know. The whole bloody mess keeps getting worse.

On your point

"Caretaker administration beckons?"

Surely a magnificent opportunity to reward some deserving Conservative donors.

Why not an actual caretaker? They could hardly do any worse.

I’ve got an idea.

There’s this chap called Bates. Could do with a good job, as I understand it. Some hands on experience in Post Office management….

Arbuthnot himself put up for Chairman last time around, but the government wasn't brave enough

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

Anyway I just mentioned the info about the director of the PO being on the Board of the CPS and his response was:

"Don't they have enough of these duffers to go round? Do they have to do double duffer duty?"

I mean, that's the icing on the cake, isn't it - we're running out of duffers.

People talk a lot here about MPs having two jobs, but it seems to me a far bigger issue is this Directorship merry-go-round where people have 4-8 jobs and are Directors for each.

If Directors were forbidden to get compensation from any other firm apart from their own, one job alone, then the quality of governance of firms in this country would need to change remarkably.

Might actually get some Directors who take their responsibilities seriously. Or maybe still not.

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

Anyway I just mentioned the info about the director of the PO being on the Board of the CPS and his response was:

"Don't they have enough of these duffers to go round? Do they have to do double duffer duty?"

I mean, that's the icing on the cake, isn't it - we're running out of duffers.

People talk a lot here about MPs having two jobs, but it seems to me a far bigger issue is this Directorship merry-go-round where people have 4-8 jobs and are Directors for each.

If Directors were forbidden to get compensation from any other firm apart from their own, one job alone, then the quality of governance of firms in this country would need to change remarkably.

Might actually get some Directors who take their responsibilities seriously. Or maybe still not.

If the Executive Director carousel didn't exist how would we grow the salaries and bonuses of Captains of Industry?