Mr Bates vs the Post Office
- Thread starter guydarryl
- Start date
I think whether you were a post master or sub postmaster was based on the amount of money that went through the PO e.g pensions. When my dad had PO he was paid quite a good salary. This changed to paying the PO for the hosting PO I think he said.
Apparently the three schemes have different tax implications and the trustees in bankruptcy are looking to get a slice of the pie. They could still get shafted again.
Apparently the three schemes have different tax implications and the trustees in bankruptcy are looking to get a slice of the pie. They could still get shafted again.
Sunak and the tories are absolute ****s here, they still believe people are thieves hence the signed disclaimer ie you’re going to jail if you’ve stolen dosh from the PO.
Absolute shits, as said above there’s a general election afoot.
All of the political parties are responsible for this mess all of them, well by that I mean the soft tories, the hard tories and the new tories.
Absolute shits, as said above there’s a general election afoot.
All of the political parties are responsible for this mess all of them, well by that I mean the soft tories, the hard tories and the new tories.
I personally wouldn’t sign this good luck to the postmasters, sub postmasters and other staff and relatives incriminated/convicted/dismissed but basically it’s saying you’re guilty but we don’t have the time to go through the legal process.
So if you’re not guilty and the state is saying that you’re not guilty then why do you have to sign something saying that you’ve not stolen money from the PO?
The current head of the PO, in an recent interview with the BBC journalist, who has been working on this story for about 14 years, said there are some of the former PO staff that won’t even open a letter from the PO such is the distrust they have in that organisation and its down to how the PO persecuted these folk over a number of years.
Absolutely despicable move from the Tory b@stards.
“The government has a standing offer of £600,000 to anyone who has their conviction quashed in relation to the scandal - but that money won't be paid out automatically once the Bill becomes law.
Nobody cleared under the plan will receive that cash until they sign a declaration that they definitely were not guilty.”
apple.news
So if you’re not guilty and the state is saying that you’re not guilty then why do you have to sign something saying that you’ve not stolen money from the PO?
The current head of the PO, in an recent interview with the BBC journalist, who has been working on this story for about 14 years, said there are some of the former PO staff that won’t even open a letter from the PO such is the distrust they have in that organisation and its down to how the PO persecuted these folk over a number of years.
Absolutely despicable move from the Tory b@stards.
“The government has a standing offer of £600,000 to anyone who has their conviction quashed in relation to the scandal - but that money won't be paid out automatically once the Bill becomes law.
Nobody cleared under the plan will receive that cash until they sign a declaration that they definitely were not guilty.”
Can the Post Office exoneration scheme work? — BBC News UK
The government will face pressure to ensure this legislation is a one-off to correct an exceptional injustice.
vacuum_tubes
pfm Member
Under no circumstances should a govt ever interfere with the judiciary. No matter how noble the intent it is wrong and should not happen.
The cases need to go through the appeals court and set aside, simplest thing would be for the govt/PO to submit a witness statement to the appeals judge stating they no longer have any confidence in the evidence originally used/presented for the prosecution.
The cases need to go through the appeals court and set aside, simplest thing would be for the govt/PO to submit a witness statement to the appeals judge stating they no longer have any confidence in the evidence originally used/presented for the prosecution.
The only people who are legally innocent or not guilty are those who’ve had their convictions dismissed on appeal everyone else who has been convicted is still guilty regardless of this political expediency nonsense.
This is just the same way those people were treated by the PO investigators who offered them a deal ie admit to false accounting or go to jail so its deny you were stealing and here’s yer dosh now GTF.
Sean Regan
pfm Member
Too many people knew what was going on.
Too many people knew what was the attitude of the Post Office.
Too many people went, "All Arsène Wenger," and kept their heads down.
Cav
pfm Member
Depends what the proposed legislation says, which no one has yet seen, but what has been said in in Parliament certainly suggests that no one would have a criminal record following the process.
Cav
pfm Member
There would have to be a formal appeal, which government lawyers would draft, along the lines of "any conviction based on any evidence from the Horizon system is unsafe and unsatisfactory". This appeal would have appended the names all those, still alive, convicted. The respondent, The Post Office, would offer no evidence and state that they accept that the convictions were unsafe and satisfactory. The Appeal Court then quashes all convictions.
No need for hundreds of formal hearings.
They have to sign the disclaimer to receive the compensation and the criminal record removed but they're not cleared of criminal behaviour is my understanding they have to go through the criminal appeal process for that to happen.
There may be some sort of crap written for them but the bottom line is they are really not cleared of criminal behaviour it's a fudge.
People will always say they're guilty unless they're cleared in a court of law.
Cav
pfm Member
Firstly, if the new Law says they are not guilty then, in law, they are not guilty.
Secondly, there are always people that will say they are guilty whatever - you seem of that persuasion.
vacuum_tubes
pfm Member
I don't think there will be any appeal under this proposed process. The govt is going to instruct the judiciary via legislation to put aside the convictions for the names they provide. If that is correct then it is politicians interfering with the justice system and sets a really nasty precedent.
Anyway it's not for us to advise so let's wait for the sub postmasters legal advisors to review and make their informed recommendations.
Cav
pfm Member
No, there will be no appeals - I suggested that as one way to do it.
Nor will the proposed legislation require any assent by the judiciary.
Last edited:
Sean Regan
pfm Member
You mean a lot of lawyers won't get their snouts into the public trough?
Southeastern
She called me baby, like an old romantic
Jubal
pfm Member
My one positive about it is how compelled they are now to conclude effectively before the GE. It’s a massive lever if the victims don’t like the terms of the contract or have some other beef that brings them together collectively.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
To incestuous sheets.
