|
Post by fi on Jan 18, 2024 18:43:01 GMT
That to me sounds like historical malice (not at all surprised by that), what I would be surprised about is if Fugitso/PO are still passing these things off as 'the truth' (as in the current truth rather than stating what happened at the time). If that makes sense...
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 18, 2024 18:49:42 GMT
The evidence I heard today from the writer of that particular e mail basically consisted of 'I can't remember' when the meaning contained within evidence produced was, in my view, clear and obvious.
Contemptible.
Mr Castleton when asked by journalists if he wished to respond to the writer (Peter Sewell) merely replied that he hoped he had as many sleepless nights as he'd suffered.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 18, 2024 19:13:00 GMT
I saw a quote of Tony Blair's from a parliamentary comment he made back in 2001, that the Horizon system was the worst thing Labour inherited when they took office in 1997.
It seems the world and its dog knew the system was pants before the turn of the century, yet here we all are over 20 years later.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 18, 2024 19:28:10 GMT
The evidence I heard today from the writer of that particular e mail basically consisted of 'I can't remember' when the meaning contained within evidence produced was, in my view, clear and obvious. Contemptible. Having thought about it for a while...
I think the comment 'I can't remember' is fair enough (I used to work gathering evidence of a minor criminal nature for a department of the Post Office...). Just because the evidence is clear about what happened, if you can't remember the specific incident then you can't go into specific details, all you can say is I don't dispute the evidence of what I wrote at the time. The evidence may be clear and obvious but if you can't remember the specific incident, then better to say so in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jan 18, 2024 20:01:31 GMT
Just on C4 news ....scandalous!
PO Board knew all about it, including Vennells, they even contacted their insurers in 2013 due to likelyhood of miscarriage of justice !
Those poor sub postmasters must be furious.😩
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jan 18, 2024 20:23:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 18, 2024 20:28:57 GMT
The evidence I heard today from the writer of that particular e mail basically consisted of 'I can't remember' when the meaning contained within evidence produced was, in my view, clear and obvious. Contemptible. Having thought about it for a while...
I think the comment 'I can't remember' is fair enough (I used to work gathering evidence of a minor criminal nature for a department of the Post Office...). Just because the evidence is clear about what happened, if you can't remember the specific incident then you can't go into specific details, all you can say is I don't dispute the evidence of what I wrote at the time. The evidence may be clear and obvious but if you can't remember the specific incident, then better to say so in my view. When YOUR OWN emails and documents regarding issues that have been under close scrutiny since (being kind) 2009 are produced for your comment , I find it (at best) cowardly or (at worst) malicious to answer 'I can't remember' ... akin to pencils up the nostrils, pants on head and saying 'wibble'. Documentary evidence is produced and then direct questions are asked ... self preservation is at play rather than a search for truth. Rog ETA Watch the channel 4 clip Andyberg has put up ... breathe taking
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 18, 2024 20:31:18 GMT
Having thought about it for a while...
I think the comment 'I can't remember' is fair enough (I used to work gathering evidence of a minor criminal nature for a department of the Post Office...). Just because the evidence is clear about what happened, if you can't remember the specific incident then you can't go into specific details, all you can say is I don't dispute the evidence of what I wrote at the time. The evidence may be clear and obvious but if you can't remember the specific incident, then better to say so in my view. When YOUR OWN emails and documents regarding issues that have been under close scrutiny since (being kind) 2009 are produced for your comment , I find it (at best) cowardly or (at worst) malicious to answer 'I can't remember' ... akin to pencils up the nostrils, pants on head and saying 'wibble'. Documentary evidence is produced and then direct questions are asked ... self preservation is at play rather than a search for truth. Rog We will have to disagree on this issue. On the wider issues surrounding the saga we are very much in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 18, 2024 20:44:24 GMT
My belief is that if you are open and honest, you can always comment on past statements even if your views have since changed.
To be a good liar you have to have a great memory.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 18, 2024 20:50:32 GMT
If it was part of a normal coversation I'd agree. Part of a legal process or a formal inquiry I'd be unsure about commenting other than answering the question truthfully.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 18, 2024 21:00:52 GMT
If it was part of a normal coversation I'd agree. Part of a legal process or a formal inquiry I'd be unsure about commenting other than answering the question truthfully. Which takes us back ' like a strong spring released ' . Fujitsu and The Post Office KNEW Horizon was pants before 2010, but they continued to prosecute based on it , state it was entirely robust and reliable (including to a Parliamentary select committee) , and destroy their staff's lives until finally in 2019 555 postmasters were finally and entirely exonerated by the courts. Speaking truthfully would have avoided all this. Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 18, 2024 21:03:26 GMT
I don't disagree... But that is just my opinion and should not affect the inquiry outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 18, 2024 21:12:37 GMT
I don't disagree... But that is just my opinion and should not affect the inquiry outcomes. I accept your opinion entirely ... I'm just asking whether you're suggesting that simply saying 'I don't remember' is a substitute for being truthful, as it seems to me in these very specific circumstances 'I don't remember' CAN BE be truthful ? The documentary evidence questions relate to is before them ... everyone can read it ... what's to remember was my point. Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jan 18, 2024 21:17:42 GMT
I don't disagree... But that is just my opinion and should not affect the inquiry outcomes. I accept your opinion entirely ... I'm just asking whether you're suggesting that simply saying 'I don't remember' is a substitute for being truthful, as it seems to me in these very specific circumstances 'I don't remember' can be truthful ? Rog Do you mean can't be truthful?
If so then I'd disagree - if your day job is to deal with case after case and not be invested personally with each case then I can see being asked about specific details would sometimes be difficult to recollect the specific memory.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 18, 2024 21:52:05 GMT
The evidence I heard today from the writer of that particular e mail basically consisted of 'I can't remember' when the meaning contained within evidence produced was, in my view, clear and obvious. Contemptible. (I used to work gathering evidence of a minor criminal nature for a department of the Post Office...). Righto then.
|
|