advertisement


Mr Bates vs the Post Office

Jubal said:
Incompetence is not illegal. She’s clearly gaming this.
Click to expand...
Extreme professional negligence is potentially a criminal offence (or civil but then individuals would have to take the case, not the State)? Her levels of ‘not knowing’ go beyond incompetence. What were the Board doing appointing her in the first place? She keeps pleading ‘I’m not a technical expert’ - all the more reason why you ask even more questions.

A great example of where she misguidedly believed she was ‘doing things right’ (keeping PO in its best light in the press) rather than ‘doing the right thing’. Too many leaders these days fail to do the right thing and take huge bonuses (sewage into our water systems another example)

A shocking world…..
 
A great example today where she claimed not to know something then the lawyer took her straight to a document where she self proclaimed the very same thing as one of her top achievements that year in a self-evaluation of her performance! but of course she can’t remember

Then elsewhere in her testimony she claims to have done nothing since leaving the Post office but prepare for this Inquiry. Yet she clearly wasn’t on top of the documents despite all her ‘prep’.

Crocodile tears and dishonesty…. How many times as a CEO can you really credibly ‘not remember’ or claim ‘poor drafting for which I’m sorry’. All lies. A CEO knows precisely what they are writing - words and tone Nasty piece of work…
 
Can't the Met investigate and make it a criminal issue?

Although I have no confidence in the Met doing anything, I'm staggered that there's no consequences.
 
The decision would be up to the CPS. Not for the first time, the issue of criminal proceedings following a public inquiry arise.

The legislation that underpins these inquiries means that of themselves they cannot prosecute. They can refer a case to the CPS, but the legal clarity about what offences had been comimted would nned to be pretty high.
 
Tim Jones said:
The decision would be up to the CPS. Not for the first time, the issue of criminal proceedings following a public inquiry arise.

The legislation that underpins these inquiries means that of themselves they cannot prosecute. They can refer a case to the CPS, but the legal clarity about what offences had been comimted would nned to be pretty high.
Click to expand...
And yet the judicial system, hang on, let's close in a bit - the judges that put people in prison who pleaded not guilty are not seen to be committing an offence. Like Vennells, they just got it wrong and that's that. Has one come out to say sorry for their part in this? Judges cannot be held accountable for bad decisions. And yet they make so many. And they are invisible when the shit hits the fan.

Concerning the wider judicial system, how tragic that the majority of postmasters gave a guilty plea. They were let down on so many levels, in particular where the system was supposed to be there to give them a chance. So this for me is worse than Vennells.

There is no wonder none of the outcomes will cut any where deep enough into the offenders.
 
richardg said:
And yet the judicial system, hang on, let's close in a bit - the judges that put people in prison who pleaded not guilty are not seen to be committing an offence. Like Vennells, they just got it wrong and that's that. Has one come out to say sorry for their part in this? Judges cannot be held accountable for bad decisions. And yet they make so many. And they are invisible when the shit hits the fan.

Concerning the wider judicial system, how tragic that the majority of postmasters gave a guilty plea. They were let down on so many levels, in particular where the system was supposed to be there to give them a chance. So this for me is worse than Vennells.

There is no wonder none of the outcomes will cut any where deep enough into the offenders.
Click to expand...
Juries convict people...guilty pleas cannot be ignored. All convictions have, rightly, been quashed.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think it is allowed, yes - witnesses are apparently given a warning about self-incrimination.

It would be hard to make any other inference to a response like "I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" than that the person had guilty knowledge of something.
Click to expand...

'Logic' isn't exactly a strong point for Legal Eagles. 8-]

However the point is that "may" can mean "mislead people into thinking that when it isn't so" in some cases.
 
Bob McC said:
The chair went to great lengths on her first day to reassure her it was.
Click to expand...

I think at this point it is important to bear in mind the extent to which this was a "corporate" failure due in some part to individuals involved all 'playing along with' a 'story' and behaviour that fitted in what others involved also were doing and saying. In effect, 'convenient groupthink' takes over.

Yes, they does mean they share the guilt in some way. But it is all too easy for people to convince themselves that what they do is 'OK' if doing otherwise would rock the boat and cause problems for them and the people they 'flock' with.

In a sense no different to the ultra-wealthy who use that wealth to 'guide' those around them into passing laws, degrading scrutiny, using UK courts, etc, etc, to boost their ability to extract wealth from the rest of us, dodge tax, etc.

She isn't a lone actor.

Not an excuse. But may help understand how people become happy to convince themselves what are doing is 'OK' when in reality is itsn't.

In the end, sunlight is the best disinfectant, though. That's why I read PE. :) (ahem) Sadly, few people on Teesside seem to. 8-]
 
OK here’s another angle. For corporate manslaughter (and one might argue - no idea how successfully - that the deaths of postmasters were caused by the organisation) , I’m sure the CEO of an organisation can also be jailed personally . How about that?
 
Or another angle still. Let’s assume that the link between suicides and the cause being POL / Vennells is too indirect (ie unable to be proven as cause and effect) to bring a successful prosecution. Health & Safety law however is getting much tougher on mental health caused by corporations. Mental health issues must be capable of being directly linked to the actions (inactions) of Vennells - and hence prosecutable. Maybe we need a campaign to the H&S Executive - they might be more tenacious ……
 
ex brickie said:
OK here’s another angle. For corporate manslaughter (and one might argue - no idea how successfully - that the deaths of postmasters were caused by the organisation) , I’m sure the CEO of an organisation can also be jailed personally . How about that?
Click to expand...
Absolutely no chance.
 
ex brickie said:
Or another angle still. Let’s assume that the link between suicides and the cause being POL / Vennells is too indirect (ie unable to be proven as cause and effect) to bring a successful prosecution. Health & Safety law however is getting much tougher on mental health caused by corporations. Mental health issues must be capable of being directly linked to the actions (inactions) of Vennells - and hence prosecutable. Maybe we need a campaign to the H&S Executive - they might be more tenacious ……
Click to expand...
Absolutely no chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top