Mr bates v the Post Office

Rita_Poon said:
I want to know who dreamed it up. Who gave the contract to Fujitsu and then signed it off when it was clearly faulty. It goes well beyond the PO and the wonkers* taking the pish there.
As for the cps, aren't they still required to check the veracity of each guilty verdict? all 100% of them.

The alarm bells were there, clear as day, either everyone is stealing, or there's a problem with how evidence is being collected.

100%.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your sentiment there Reets, but the contract with Fujitsu probably starred just like many others, all IT projects have bugs. The problem started when the bugs were not acknowledged and dealt with properly, then hidden, obfuscated and prosecutions carried on regardless. There were many people in the PO who should have known better and behaved atrociously. Sacrificing individuals for corporate face saving. I'm not sure whether the CPs have a duty to 'check' the prosecutions by another prosecuting body, they may have a responsibility or not, I really dont know. Soon PO staff were acquitted though, I dont think it was 100% convictions.
 
arch stanton said:
I agree with most of your sentiment there Reets, but the contract with Fujitsu probably starred just like many others, all IT projects have bugs. The problem started when the bugs were not acknowledged and dealt with properly, then hidden, obfuscated and prosecutions carried on regardless. There were many people in the PO who should have known better and behaved atrociously. Sacrificing individuals for corporate face saving. I'm not sure whether the CPs have a duty to 'check' the prosecutions by another prosecuting body, they may have a responsibility or not, I really dont know. Soon PO staff were acquitted though, I dont think it was 100% convictions.
Click to expand...
That's the bit I most want, if it's not 100% suspicion and subsequent trial and conviction, is there a correlation somewhere of who was found so easily guilty and then who was given the benefit of the doubt somehow. You might now be getting an idea of what my angle is.
 
Rita_Poon said:
Who's checking them, on behalf of the crown? Do, do... the po have their own crack squad of uniformed organised racists like the cps has the fuzz?
Click to expand...
the CPS aren't the only or prime prosecuting body (I dont think) and I;'m not sure if they have a responsibility to check the other prosecuting bodies. Why would they need to if the other prosecution bodies are doing what they are supposed to?
 
Rita_Poon said:
That's the bit I most want, if it's not 100% suspicion and subsequent trial and conviction, is there a correlation somewhere of who was found so easily guilty and then who was given the benefit of the doubt somehow. You might now be getting an idea of what my angle is.
Click to expand...
it would be suspicious, without doubt. A proper prosecuting body would surely have some cases that had some strengths and some weaknesses that crossed the threshold and they thought 'lets let a jury decide' and some of those would be acquittals
 

arch stanton said:
the CPS aren't the only or prime prosecuting body (I dont think) and I;'m not sure if they have a responsibility to check the other prosecuting bodies. Why would they need to if the other prosecution bodies are doing what they are supposed to?
Click to expand...
Because they weren't. And other parties involved had a stake in seeing wrong done.
For instance, 'the Tottenham three'.
 
arch stanton said:
it would be suspicious, without doubt. A proper prosecuting body would surely have some cases that had some strengths and some weaknesses that crossed the threshold and they thought 'lets let a jury decide' and some of those would be acquittals
Click to expand...
The same evidence to convict, relied upon, and disputed in every single case.

The same set of circumstances over and over. These are supposed to be educated people. With safeguards and checks to prevent harm done.
 
Alan Whittle said:
Consistency?
Click to expand...
earlier on in the hearing the CPS involvement was mentioned but that was where CPS prosecuted. I'm not aware of anyone whose responsibility it is to check whether a jury has 'got it right' or not and I'm not sure how that can be done. It was mentioned that CPS questioned the Horizon evidence on the jobs they prosecuted but they were assured it was safe to use. They were lied to. Why would a review process be any different? We are looking at this with huge amounts of hindsight too, Im really mindful that in the rightful desire to get justice for these poor people that we dont create more victims by wrongfully and unfairly dragging people in. There will eb enough people who are patently at fault without scapegoating others.
 
Rita_Poon said:
The same evidence to convict, relied upon, and disputed in every single case.

The same set of circumstances over and over. These are supposed to be educated people. With safeguards and checks to prevent harm done.
Click to expand...
the problem came with each individual trial, the trial was told that the system was fine and these were the only people (on each individual trial) that was having a problem with the system. Those who were prosecuting knew that wasn't the case, the jury/courts weren't. Its baffling how they could do that to innocent people.
 

arch stanton said:
the problem came with each individual trial, the trial was told that the system was fine and these were the only people (on each individual trial) that was having a problem with the system. Those who were prosecuting knew that wasn't the case, the jury/courts weren't. Its baffling how they could do that to innocent people.
Click to expand...
Criminal conspiracy. Perjury. Potential evidence tampering.

Edit: Also, there is an appeals panel for cases (see Andrew Malkinson) and the years they knew full well there was a problem and kept him locked up all the same.
 
Rita_Poon said:
Criminal conspiracy. Perjury. Potential evidence tampering.
Click to expand...
oh there should be some big hitting heavy sentence prosecutions arising out of this. Don't forget fraud, perverting the course of justice, (max life sentence). I want some big PO dudes and dudesses get their comeuppance, but only those that deserve it. I dont want the low hanging fruit. I want some big hitters to get what they deserve.

Fancy meeting up for a few days party at their trial Reets?
 
arch stanton said:
oh there should be some big hitting heavy sentence prosecutions arising out of this. Don't forget fraud, perverting the course of justice, (max life sentence). I want some big PO dudes and dudesses get their comeuppance, but only those that deserve it. I dont want the low hanging fruit. I want some big hitters to get what they deserve.

Fancy meeting up for a few days party at their trial Reets?
Click to expand...
They won't let me in anymore.
 
Oddly, every day I watch the Inquiry proceedings I feel better about Britain - the avuncular but sharp Wyn Williams presiding, the clever barristers determined to seek the truth and the general air of decency about the whole business.

Then I put on the news and feel as bad as before.
 
arch stanton said:
oh there should be some big hitting heavy sentence prosecutions arising out of this. Don't forget fraud, perverting the course of justice, (max life sentence). I want some big PO dudes and dudesses get their comeuppance, but only those that deserve it. I dont want the low hanging fruit. I want some big hitters to get what they deserve.

Fancy meeting up for a few days party at their trial Reets?
Click to expand...
Perverting the course of justice is the obvious charge. But I bet it never happens. Vennels and deBogard have the dirt on the higher ups in government
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top