|
Post by on Jan 9, 2024 14:26:19 GMT
I was joking about the pension fund by the way. It was all legit and the plane crash was an accident.
He did have a CBE though..
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jan 9, 2024 18:11:42 GMT
To me, that's says post masters were convicted in a court of law but are appealing their sentences to the post office. They would be appealing to the court, not the post office. Appealing against the post office would be true. The post office can't convict or overturn a ruling from a court - ever. Only a court or the government can do that Yes, I know how the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jan 10, 2024 11:34:04 GMT
The kiddy fiddling Devil Dodgers jump in to defend one of their own after it compares Mr Bates vs Post Office TV drama to ‘The Crown’ 🙄 ************************************************************************************************ "Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office chief executive, should not be judged on an ITV drama that is a “bit like The Crown”, a spokesman for her bishop said on Monday. Ms Vennells, 65, was ordained as a priest in 2006 and had been an associate minister in the diocese of St Albans while at the same time running the Post Office. She stepped down from her post in 2021 after the Court of Appeal cleared 39 sub-postmasters of any wrongdoing. Ms Vennells is accused along with other Post Office bosses of presiding over the greatest miscarriage of justice in British legal history. The case has been thrust back into the limelight by ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office that has reignited the scandal. But a spokesman for the Bishop of St Albans said it would not be right to judge Ms Vennells until all the facts are known in the wake of an ongoing public inquiry. The spokesman said: “It [the television drama] is a bit like The Crown where it diverges from actual fact into TV.” The spokesman added: “The television show has... diverged from established public fact and that is why we need the appropriate processes to go ahead.” A disclaimer at the beginning of the programme accepts that some names have been changed and some scenes imagined. " ****************************************************************** uk.news.yahoo.com/paula-vennells-church-compares-post-214625738.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFyCIeb7W_xG-utCwJJVOgd1kxz2Z2G3rMueW2Zjq93iiDaqfHgDlU7TSO-ZsRa-9hyE5t_WdQrPKJvf6TMtskzcjdvUOuU4ro0vD4jCQpr7rx6qfjUEp2skav8h_2EFm01Mzj8MNrlb3UyIjMEXGoBqK-QUCX4YXuYGyYBFQMHa
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 10, 2024 11:42:11 GMT
PMQs coming up, will be interesting to see what is said.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 10, 2024 11:50:32 GMT
No doubt he'll produce a 'rabbit from the hat' to divert attention ... but if it assists and keeps speed and momentum to their case, so be it.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 10, 2024 12:11:36 GMT
It descended into party politics straight away. Sadly.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 10, 2024 12:20:09 GMT
It's many years since I watched PM questions live.
It'll be many years before I do again.
No substance from either side just a 'jolly boys' shouting match with lots of fun and smiles.
Disgusts me to be honest ... both emphasising that the other has no understanding of normal life in Britain when it is blindingly obvious that neither do.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 10, 2024 12:27:39 GMT
It's many years since I watched PM questions live. It'll be many years before I do again. No substance from either side just a 'jolly boys' shouting match with lots of fun a smiles. Disgusts me to be honest ... both emphasising that the other has no understanding of normal life in Britain when it is blindingly obvious that neither do. Rog I agree. But on the other hand, if you have ever looked at First Ministers questions (ie the Scottish version), it tends to go too far the other way. Someone asks a question, the First Minister replies with the standard evasive bullshit, and then it is on to the next bland question. There is no too-ing and fro-ing and the presiding officer keeps a tight rein. The whole thing seems even more pointless than the Westminster version.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 10, 2024 13:04:20 GMT
So it looks like all cases will be overturned, sense prevails in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Jan 10, 2024 13:16:37 GMT
Even if there is a genuine case of theft or fraud or whatever, at this point it would be seemingly impossible to prove.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 10, 2024 13:29:45 GMT
Even if there is a genuine case of theft or fraud or whatever, at this point it would be seemingly impossible to prove. Well, certainly any evidence based on Horizon data would surely be inadmissible. But I suppose if the accused had suddenly eg bought a fancy new car, house etc from means that they can’t account for, there could still be a sucessful prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Jan 10, 2024 15:36:26 GMT
I don't see why, given the will, it should take so long to properly clear the accused through the court system. Hire a hall, ask a retiring or recently retired judge or three sit at special appeal courts and make the PO produce evidence of wrong doing that has nothing to do with Horizon for all cases. No such evidence - conviction quashed - next case. If the PO does have such evidence, then case adjourned until all cases with no such evidence have been heard. Even with the 900 odd cases, it should not take that long to get through them.
I looks too much like government penny-pinching and taking shortcuts to me.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Jan 10, 2024 16:08:20 GMT
Yeah, talk about taking the most expeditious route to a swift conclusion or what.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Jan 10, 2024 16:59:23 GMT
Yeah, talk about taking the most expeditious route to a swift conclusion or what. I am afraid, I think the conclusion reached is more important to some than any fairness ---- and I am not talking about the post masters and mistresses.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 10, 2024 17:20:19 GMT
Yeah, talk about taking the most expeditious route to a swift conclusion or what. I am afraid, I think the conclusion reached is more important to some than any fairness ---- and I am not talking about the post masters and mistresses. Do you think the current conclusion/state of play is fair? To me it boils down to what has become the lesser of the evils, so the conclusion is more important than trying to achieve absolute fairness for all.
|
|