|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 7, 2024 7:43:48 GMT
It seems that people were intimidated into pleading guilty to "false accounting" by threats that, if they didn't, they would get a jail sentence. So the PO were never required to prove that they were guilty of anything. If people had just pleaded not guilty there is not a chance that the PO could ever have made the charge stick with a computer system like Horizon - which relied on manual recovery from comms errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 12:55:40 GMT
It seems that people were intimidated into pleading guilty to "false accounting" by threats that, if they didn't, they would get a jail sentence. So the PO were never required to prove that they were guilty of anything. If people had just pleaded not guilty there is not a chance that the PO could ever have made the charge stick with a computer system like Horizon - which relied on manual recovery from comms errors. Indeed, people were intimidated into confessing to lesser crimes which they were innocent of to avoid being sent to jail for bigger crimes which in fact the post office had no evidence of. This is actually unethical and quite probably illegal when they had zero evidence for the crimes they were threatening them with. Imagine if such tactics were used more generally. For example, let's say the police tried to fine you for public indecency because you supposedly urinated against a wall somewhere. In fact it wasnt you but the police tell you that if you dont fess up and pay the fine anyway, they will charge you with exposing yourself to nearby children with jail the likely consequence. I think in a situation such as that many of us would feel intimidated into paying the fine. Thats why threatening to put someone in jail for a crime they have zero evidence for just to get them to fess up to a lesser charge that also would not stand up in court is wholly wrong. Heads should roll for that, with criminal charges where necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 7, 2024 13:16:28 GMT
It seems that people were intimidated into pleading guilty to "false accounting" by threats that, if they didn't, they would get a jail sentence. So the PO were never required to prove that they were guilty of anything. If people had just pleaded not guilty there is not a chance that the PO could ever have made the charge stick with a computer system like Horizon - which relied on manual recovery from comms errors. A major problem seemed to be that the Post Office is an authorised criminal prosecuting authority , ie they can launch their own criminal prosecutions without police intervention or prosecution approval from CPS and went ahead and prosecuted despite evidence to say there was no cause (one of the convicted postmasters was later told there was a memo in her file from the auditor to state they could find no evidence of wrongdoing although there was a financial discrepancy) RSPA and NSPCC have similar prosecuting authority but very rarely launch their own prosecutions due to the vast costs involved The Post office with its multi million balance sheet and government sole shareholdership has no such financial cares About time this ability to prosecute in their own name was withdrawn from the Post Office |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 7, 2024 13:36:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 14:29:36 GMT
About time this ability to prosecute in their own name was withdrawn from the Post Office Absolutely. They have abused their position and their 300 year old position of trust must be removed. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 7, 2024 15:28:26 GMT
It seems that people were intimidated into pleading guilty to "false accounting" by threats that, if they didn't, they would get a jail sentence. So the PO were never required to prove that they were guilty of anything. If people had just pleaded not guilty there is not a chance that the PO could ever have made the charge stick with a computer system like Horizon - which relied on manual recovery from comms errors. A major problem seemed to be that the Post Office is an authorised criminal prosecuting authority , ie they can launch their own criminal prosecutions without police intervention or prosecution approval from CPS and went ahead and prosecuted despite evidence to say there was no cause (one of the convicted postmasters was later told there was a memo in her file from the auditor to state they could find no evidence of wrongdoing although there was a financial discrepancy) RSPA and NSPCC have similar prosecuting authority but very rarely launch their own prosecutions due to the vast costs involved The Post office with its multi million balance sheet and government sole shareholdership has no such financial cares About time this ability to prosecute in their own name was withdrawn from the Post Office I agree the privilege should be withdrawn, but I thought most of the prosecutions were 'standard' private prosecutions by the Post Office. I wasn't aware they had a different status from the man/company in the street. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2024 15:53:07 GMT
A major problem seemed to be that the Post Office is an authorised criminal prosecuting authority , ie they can launch their own criminal prosecutions without police intervention or prosecution approval from CPS and went ahead and prosecuted despite evidence to say there was no cause (one of the convicted postmasters was later told there was a memo in her file from the auditor to state they could find no evidence of wrongdoing although there was a financial discrepancy) RSPA and NSPCC have similar prosecuting authority but very rarely launch their own prosecutions due to the vast costs involved The Post office with its multi million balance sheet and government sole shareholdership has no such financial cares About time this ability to prosecute in their own name was withdrawn from the Post Office I agree the privilege should be withdrawn, but I thought most of the prosecutions were 'standard' private prosecutions by the Post Office. I wasn't aware they had a different status from the man/company in the street. I think they used the threat to force false confessions. To the ordinary person being told the person accusing you was also the prosecutor sounds very scary. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 7, 2024 15:53:17 GMT
A major problem seemed to be that the Post Office is an authorised criminal prosecuting authority , ie they can launch their own criminal prosecutions without police intervention or prosecution approval from CPS and went ahead and prosecuted despite evidence to say there was no cause (one of the convicted postmasters was later told there was a memo in her file from the auditor to state they could find no evidence of wrongdoing although there was a financial discrepancy) RSPA and NSPCC have similar prosecuting authority but very rarely launch their own prosecutions due to the vast costs involved The Post office with its multi million balance sheet and government sole shareholdership has no such financial cares About time this ability to prosecute in their own name was withdrawn from the Post Office I agree the privilege should be withdrawn, but I thought most of the prosecutions were 'standard' private prosecutions by the Post Office. I wasn't aware they had a different status from the man/company in the street. If you watched the series the right of the post office to launch its own criminal prosecutions was illustrated when at court the post mistress (Jo?) said that she's be expecting to be arrested by the police and was told that wouldn't be happening as the Post Office handled its own prosecutions (believe I'm right in saying this also applies to HSE, Food Standards , NSPCC, RSPCA and the like but is very rarely actioned because of huge costs involved but am prepared to be proved wrong if my belief is incorrect) With standard private prosecutions i thought that the CPS generally take them over and often discontinue. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2024 16:04:06 GMT
I agree the privilege should be withdrawn, but I thought most of the prosecutions were 'standard' private prosecutions by the Post Office. I wasn't aware they had a different status from the man/company in the street. If you watched the series the right of the post office to launch its own criminal prosecutions was illustrated when at court the post mistress (Jo?) said that she's be expecting to be arrested by the police and was told that wouldn't be happening as the Post Office handled its own prosecutions (believe I'm right in saying this also applies to HSE, Food Standards , NSPCC, RSPCA and the like but is very rarely actioned because of huge costs involved but am prepared to be proved wrong if my belief is incorrect) With standard private prosecutions i thought that the CPS generally take them over and often discontinue. Agreed Ratcliff. The exclusion of an independent CPS is what scared many sub postmasters into agreeing terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 7, 2024 16:05:35 GMT
I agree the privilege should be withdrawn, but I thought most of the prosecutions were 'standard' private prosecutions by the Post Office. I wasn't aware they had a different status from the man/company in the street. If you watched the series the right of the post office to launch its own criminal prosecutions was illustrated when at court the post mistress (Jo?) said that she's be expecting to be arrested by the police and was told that wouldn't be happening as the Post Office handled its own prosecutions (believe I'm right in saying this also applies to HSE, Food Standards , NSPCC, RSPCA and the like but is very rarely actioned because of huge costs involved but am prepared to be proved wrong if my belief is incorrect) With standard private prosecutions i thought that the CPS generally take them over and often discontinue. I didn't watch it. You are right about the CPS generally taking over private prosecutions, but the post office says:
Post Office has no special authority to bring private prosecutions. The right to bring a private criminal prosecution is available to both companies and individuals in England and Wales as a result of section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. (link).
To remove its right to prosecute it would just be a matter of adding it to the list of organisations where the DPP has to take over.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 7, 2024 16:19:32 GMT
If you watched the series the right of the post office to launch its own criminal prosecutions was illustrated when at court the post mistress (Jo?) said that she's be expecting to be arrested by the police and was told that wouldn't be happening as the Post Office handled its own prosecutions (believe I'm right in saying this also applies to HSE, Food Standards , NSPCC, RSPCA and the like but is very rarely actioned because of huge costs involved but am prepared to be proved wrong if my belief is incorrect) With standard private prosecutions i thought that the CPS generally take them over and often discontinue. I didn't watch it. You are right about the CPS generally taking over private prosecutions, but the post office says:
Post Office has no special authority to bring private prosecutions. The right to bring a private criminal prosecution is available to both companies and individuals in England and Wales as a result of section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. (link).
To remove its right to prosecute it would just be a matter of adding it to the list of organisations where the DPP has to take over.
having seen the series I would hesitate to accept anything the Post Office said n its website unless it had been independently checked by at least 4 independent outside agencies further down your link it states Post Office has currently identified a total of 700 convictions in cases it prosecuted between 1999 and 2015
700 convictions in 15 years - that's not the number of its prosecutions it ran , just convictions and the costs to it must have involved tens of millions (one convicted postmaster on tv had over £300 000 post office legal costs awarded against him!) If these were ''ordinary'' private prosecutions I'd have thought that eyebrows would have been raised at the CPS if such numbers were going through criminal courts from a single prosecution source |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 7, 2024 16:22:02 GMT
Mr Bates is becoming the modern day British Mao.
Right back in the beginning, Mao kind of said to the mistreated factory workers by the fascist government which oversaw the industry of the time, that we should band together and form a a union. The powers that be did not take kindly to the workers forming a union and so all hell broke loose. After a great deal of kerfuffle, as we all know by now, Mao ended up as leader of the entire country.
It seems to me the same process is going on. We the people can't trust a single one of the blighters in power, so we look to ourselves. Some offer false hope, but then there is the fighter. Mao was a fighter and that is why he became the hero. He won his battles. Mr Bates won his battle. Now what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 7, 2024 16:29:33 GMT
I didn't watch it. You are right about the CPS generally taking over private prosecutions, but the post office says:
Post Office has no special authority to bring private prosecutions. The right to bring a private criminal prosecution is available to both companies and individuals in England and Wales as a result of section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. (link).
To remove its right to prosecute it would just be a matter of adding it to the list of organisations where the DPP has to take over.
having seen the series I would hesitate to accept anything the Post Office said n its website unless it had been independently checked by at least 4 independent outside agencies further down your link it states Post Office has currently identified a total of 700 convictions in cases it prosecuted between 1999 and 2015
700 convictions in 15 years - that's not the number of its prosecutions it ran , just convictions and the costs to it must have involved tens of millions (one convicted postmaster on tv had over £300 000 post office legal costs awarded against him!) If these were ''ordinary'' private prosecutions I'd have thought that eyebrows would have been raised at the CPS if such numbers were going through criminal courts from a single prosecution source I take your point  .
I don't think there is anything legislative that confers special powers to prosecute on the post office or the other organisations you mention. I think it works, if you like, the other way around; that is, the DPP (CPS) has to take over prosections initiated by the police and some other agancies. So to take the right to prosecute away from the Post Office, it would need to be added to the organisations like the police.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 7, 2024 16:30:31 GMT
The thought that has struck me is that despite the evidence, testimonies, appeals, intervention of MPs, the only thing that has spurred on action is an ITV drama/documentary. We have in place a very expensive Parliament, a very expensive legal system, a very expensive ombudsman and a free national press.
In spite of all that we still have the Post Office employing lawyers to dispute every appeal, the person accountable has had a CBE and a £400,000 payoff and the system has completely failed to achieve justice for the people concerned despite twenty years of this being common knowledge.
ITV has achieved what vast amounts of taxpayers money funding the Establishment has failed to do.
It shouldn't need petitions to strip the person responsible of her CBE, the Government should do this without prompting. This mess is just another example of a useless, corrupt and lacking in moral fibre Government, Ed Davie, the person who wishes to lead a political party into the next election being one of the most culpable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 7, 2024 16:38:33 GMT
The thought that has struck me is that despite the evidence, testimonies, appeals, intervention of MPs, the only thing that has spurred on action is an ITV drama/documentary. We have in place a very expensive Parliament, a very expensive legal system, a very expensive ombudsman and a free national press. In spite of all that we still have the Post Office employing lawyers to dispute every appeal, the person accountable has had a CBE and a £400,000 payoff and the system has completely failed to achieve justice for the people concerned despite twenty years of this being common knowledge. ITV has achieved what vast amounts of taxpayers money funding the Establishment has failed to do. It shouldn't need petitions to strip the person responsible of her CBE, the Government should do this without prompting. This mess is just another example of a useless, corrupt and lacking in moral fibre Government, Ed Davie, the person who wishes to lead a political party into the next election being one of the most culpable. Spot on, next on the list documentary about Tony Blair, followed by huge petition to strip him of his knighthood and then face criminal proceedings. |
|
.
