|
Post by brummieboy on Jan 20, 2024 11:56:41 GMT
And the long grass is already growing, a suitable target for kicking into. The Met Police cannot initiate any investigation into legal offences unti l the Inquiry Panel has published its report. That inwuiry is scheduled to last until the end of this year, with the report due by the end of 2025.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Jan 20, 2024 12:06:06 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 Not Horizon, but the other public inquiry. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68032233. Boris and Rishi, and others obviously missed a trick. I suppose that she might as well be hung for a sheep instead of a lamb.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jan 21, 2024 9:15:55 GMT
Just started reading Nick Wallis's book from 2021 (The guy who was the adviser to the TV drama).
The detail he provides certainly helps understanding, but every page has new horrible revelations.
The feeling of helplessness and having no where to turn must have been tortuous.
The focus is of course on 'losses' the computer system threw out, but it occasionally also showed surplus too.
The sub postmasters, getting no assistance from the help-line who's staff were as poorly trained as them, learned to keep an 'under and over tin' to store surplus and balance defecits.
Shortly after installation one sub postmaster had a Β£100,000 surplus and felt she had to report it. The Post Office balanced the books for her. Later she had no such assistance when deficits began to show.
The issues were greatly compounded by the National Federation of Sub Postmasters (effectively the sub postmasters union) being 100% committed to computerisation and supporting the Post Office in saying the Horizon system was robust and reliable.
Of course evidence now shows the Post Office KNEW this to be untrue all along, whilst the NFSP merely chose to ignore growing complaints from their members to side with the Post Office.
Even their own union refused to listen to them.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Jan 21, 2024 9:40:54 GMT
Just started reading Nick Wallis's book from 2021 (The guy who was the adviser to the TV drama). The detail he provides certainly helps understanding, but every page has new horribleΒ revelations. The feeling of helplessness and having no where to turn must have been tortuous. The focus is of course on 'losses' the computer system threw out, but it occasionally also showed surplus too. The sub postmasters, getting no assistance from the help-line who's staff were as poorly trained as them, learned to keep an 'under and over tin' to store surplus and balance defecits. Shortly after installation one sub postmaster had a Β£100,000 surplus and felt she had to report it. The Post Office balanced the books for her. Later she had no such assistance when deficits began to show. The issues were greatly compounded by the National Federation of Sub Postmasters (effectively the sub postmasters union) being 100% committed to computerisation and supporting the Post Office in saying the Horizon system was robust and reliable. Of course evidence now shows the Post Office KNEW this to be untrue all along, whilst the NFSP merely chose to ignore growing complaints from their members to side with the Post Office. Even their own union refused to listen to them. Rog Although to be fair, I don't think it's the perogative of any union to contest sworn statements. What all this shows, as well as the commitment of upper management to lie until found out, is the very great risk that whistleblowing poses to anybody contemplating doing so. Just ask Edward Snowden. But to be honest, it seems to me highly implausible that the issues were not common knowledge in any tier of management.
|
|