|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 6, 2024 20:03:38 GMT
Did you get some work done on the Velosolux today Mr Stabby ? Rog Yes, I mostly installed the rear brake cable, which involved disassembling the handlebar brake lever assembly which had not been apart in five decades and didn't give up without a prolonged struggle, I just have to finish off connecting it to the brake calliper tomorrow and sort out the wiring to the rear light. I decided that the photo of the frame number I was preparing to send to DVLA was not of sufficiently high quality and would probably be rejected so I rubbed the paint off, photographed it then had the photo printed at Boots in Binley. I will re-paint this area and the centre stand tomorrow. Also rode it up and down the farm track a few times. The more I ride it, the better it runs. When I first got the engine running, it wouldn't go along the track without pedal assistance, now I need to throttle it back because it goes too fast ("fast" is a relative term here). I'm hoping the amended Dating Certificate will arrive this week to I can apply to DVLA for the V5C. I'd like to get it road legal by Easter.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 7, 2024 10:55:38 GMT
Watched the second part ... hard to grasp it's true and is a dramatisation of what actually happened.
To constantly tell individuals experiencing problems with the Horizon system that "no one else has these issues" was obviously a corporate response driven from the top when they KNEW what had happened and also knew it was still happening.
That takes real malice in my view.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Jan 7, 2024 12:42:10 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A.
|
|
|
Post by β on Jan 7, 2024 12:59:29 GMT
ICL was a British company until 1998.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 7, 2024 13:14:37 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A. I was amazed to learn that the Post Office does it's own investigations and then also prosecutes its own cases, but was stunned to learn they also are responsible for hearing any appeals. What could possibly go wrong. Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 7, 2024 13:25:21 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A. Most companies and individuals can carry out a private prosecution for criminal cases as long as the case is not consireded malicious in the first instance. It is part of our democratic rights and is one of a range of measures aimed at stopping a government controlling matters of law without going through the parliamentary process. Lets not chuck stuff out before considering the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 7, 2024 13:26:27 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A. I was amazed to learn that the Post Office does it's own investigations and then also prosecutes its own cases, but was stunned to learn they also are responsible for hearing any appeals. What could possibly go wrong. Rog Defending the appeals - unless I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 7, 2024 13:42:26 GMT
Extract from today's news ... perhaps I misinterpreted. Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 7, 2024 13:50:21 GMT
Yep, the prosecuting authority (Post Office in these cases) defends an appeal or can choose not to defend the appeal. In either case a Judge/s will consider the merits of the appeal and make a decision.
What Sunak seems to be suggesting is that the CPS could take over as the prosecuting authority - this is a right already in law for original cases, not sure about appeals though.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 7, 2024 14:07:47 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A. I was amazed to learn that the Post Office does it's own investigations and then also prosecutes its own cases, but was stunned to learn they also are responsible for hearing any appeals. What could possibly go wrong. Rog And also the post office is in charge of the compensation scheme. Again WCPGR.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 7, 2024 14:32:38 GMT
And our beloved government are the sole share holder.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 7, 2024 14:48:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 7, 2024 15:38:54 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A. I was amazed to learn that the Post Office does it's own investigations and then also prosecutes its own cases, but was stunned to learn they also are responsible for hearing any appeals. What could possibly go wrong. Rog A bit like crt then?
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Jan 7, 2024 19:13:43 GMT
There is a wider issue where Public and Government departments (eg. DVLA and BBC) are allowed to circumvent the normal channels of prosecution. If everything had gone through the Crown Prosecution Service, the wider picture would have been queried and investigated fully much sooner. There are some very high profile individuals who must be very concerned, and there is no reason whythe costs should not be borne by Fujitsu and ICL, but no doubt they will be beyond British Law through the one sided 'treaty' with the U.S.A. Most companies and individuals can carry out a private prosecution for criminal cases as long as the case is not consireded malicious in the first instance. It is part of our democratic rights and is one of a range of measures aimed at stopping a government controlling matters of law without going through the parliamentary process. Lets not chuck stuff out before considering the consequences. Agreed, but doesn't this only cover retribution for damages, and not a criminal conviction with jail. The most notorious example in recent times was probably the Stephen Lawrence case. If I recall correctly, the defendants were only jailed after a further trial
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Jan 7, 2024 19:17:30 GMT
I was amazed to learn that the Post Office does it's own investigations and then also prosecutes its own cases, but was stunned to learn they also are responsible for hearing any appeals. What could possibly go wrong. Rog A bit like crt then? Not at all like CaRT, who use the courts to enforce their laws. The big problem is that there are never any appeals against the judgements, except for one celebrated individual whose name I cannot recall who won a case about Brentford moorings.
|
|