|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 21, 2024 13:25:07 GMT
She then addressed parliament which you can listen to here.
The problem for Badenough is Mr Staunton claims he has been told by Sarah Munby www.gov.uk/government/people/sarah-munby that she did not want the post office claims sorted out before the general election, describing such a thing as "removing the band aid".
Now Mr Staunton told the Times that he had been told this by a "senior official" and then we get Badenough's denial in parliament as linked above, and then after Badenough put her foot in it, Mr Staunton said he had written proof in an email of notes he took during his meeting that he emailed to himself and is on the post office server.
Today Mr Staunton elaborated and said he also emailed these briefing notes to one of the post office directors as well as himself, so presumably to pass on the direction to the board. Also since Badenough lied, he has named the senior official and we await parliament to be corrected "at the soonest opportunity" which is stipulated in member's rules. Failure to do so will result in disciplinary action and possible suspension. If the suspension is longer than ten days a by-election will have to be called.
Well my personal thoughts on this is it is rather a refreshing change to see proper skilful British management in operation. Well done to Mr Staunton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 21, 2024 16:54:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 21, 2024 17:43:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 21, 2024 17:44:42 GMT
“Now was not the time for dealing with long-term issues,” apparently means “Now was not the time for dealing with financial long-term issues and do not include postmaster compensation which is being fully-funded by the Government,”
And Mr Staunton was sacked for not doing as he was told.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 21, 2024 19:09:00 GMT
“Now was not the time for dealing with long-term issues,” apparently means “Now was not the time for dealing with financial long-term issues and do not include postmaster compensation which is being fully-funded by the Government,”
And Mr Staunton was sacked for not doing as he was told.
I'm not sure its up to you to declare what Ms Munby means.. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Feb 21, 2024 22:51:28 GMT
Staunton is accusing those who sacked him of recently saying things that may have been said to him when he was appointed head of the Post Office by someone who is now "not in government". Combined with the accusations of bullying and apparently wanting to run things his own way I suspect his real problem is that he's mildly demented. The ability to "act as an authority" can often be maintained in the early stages of dementia. "Old people" confabulate ... often convincingly until their problem becomes apparent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Feb 22, 2024 6:02:32 GMT
Ms Munby said the meetings were to discuss Post Office operational funding, not compensation funding. She said these two areas of spending were separately ringfenced, and it was factually wrong to suggest that cuts to compensation would have improved the Post Office’s financial position.
This does not appear to accord with the financial statements of the Post Office - financial statements prepared and published prior to the broadcasting of the Mr Bates dramatization. Both the audit report and notes to the accounts refer to the provision for settlements potentially materially affecting the 'going concern' status of the Post Office. In particular, the following sentence caught my eye:
The reduction in the provision year on year is primarily driven by changes in assumptions underpinning the model, including the low rate of convictions being overturned. link
Personally, I am not persuaded by either Ms Badenoch or the senior civil servant. I suspect Badenoch suffers from the same delusion as Sunak in believing they will be believed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 22, 2024 7:17:07 GMT
The department is going woke.
this was found on Mumby's Linkedin page
Also in the comments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 7:35:46 GMT
Who is the coloured guy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 7:37:52 GMT
Ms Munby said the meetings were to discuss Post Office operational funding, not compensation funding. She said these two areas of spending were separately ringfenced, and it was factually wrong to suggest that cuts to compensation would have improved the Post Office’s financial position.
This does not appear to accord with the financial statements of the Post Office - financial statements prepared and published prior to the broadcasting of the Mr Bates dramatization. Both the audit report and notes to the accounts refer to the provision for settlements potentially materially affecting the 'going concern' status of the Post Office. In particular, the following sentence caught my eye:
The reduction in the provision year on year is primarily driven by changes in assumptions underpinning the model, including the low rate of convictions being overturned. link
Personally, I am not persuaded by either Ms Badenoch or the senior civil servant. I suspect Badenoch suffers from the same delusion as Sunak in believing they will be believed.
Well I would have thought that if the boss of the Post Office was told by the Government to slow down payments for political benefit he would have tendered his resignation on the spot - not wait until he was sacked and then start complaining.. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Feb 22, 2024 8:14:36 GMT
Ms Munby said the meetings were to discuss Post Office operational funding, not compensation funding. She said these two areas of spending were separately ringfenced, and it was factually wrong to suggest that cuts to compensation would have improved the Post Office’s financial position.
This does not appear to accord with the financial statements of the Post Office - financial statements prepared and published prior to the broadcasting of the Mr Bates dramatization. Both the audit report and notes to the accounts refer to the provision for settlements potentially materially affecting the 'going concern' status of the Post Office. In particular, the following sentence caught my eye:
The reduction in the provision year on year is primarily driven by changes in assumptions underpinning the model, including the low rate of convictions being overturned. link
Personally, I am not persuaded by either Ms Badenoch or the senior civil servant. I suspect Badenoch suffers from the same delusion as Sunak in believing they will be believed.
Well I would have thought that if the boss of the Post Office was told by the Government to slow down payments for political benefit he would have tendered his resignation on the spot - not wait until he was sacked and then start complaining.. That would depend on how he thought he could best fulfil his fiduciary duties.
My point, however, is that the civil servant's position does not tie back to the position stated in the accounts of the Post Office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 8:26:48 GMT
Well I would have thought that if the boss of the Post Office was told by the Government to slow down payments for political benefit he would have tendered his resignation on the spot - not wait until he was sacked and then start complaining.. That would depend on how he thought he could best fulfil his fiduciary duties.
My point, however, is that the civil servant's position does not tie back to the position stated in the accounts of the Post Office.
Well as the accounts point out the compensation scheme is now being funded by the Government and not the Post Office - so I'm a bit unclear how slowing down compensation payments would affect the Post Office in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Feb 22, 2024 9:24:50 GMT
That would depend on how he thought he could best fulfil his fiduciary duties.
My point, however, is that the civil servant's position does not tie back to the position stated in the accounts of the Post Office.
Well as the accounts point out the compensation scheme is now being funded by the Government and not the Post Office - so I'm a bit unclear how slowing down compensation payments would affect the Post Office in any way. Put simply, the provision for the loss is calculated on the basis of the rate of claims and reversal of convictions, then discounted for future value. The faster compensation payments are made the larger the provision.
You will have noted the caveats regarding government funding, for example:
At this point intime, it is not possible to accurately estimate the potential liability that may arise as a result of this process. The
Government has announced its intention to support the Group with funding to cover the cost of compensation for Postmasters affected however the funding is subject to compliance with subsidy control requirements, including referral to the SAU under the Subsidy Control Act 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 12:06:51 GMT
Well as the accounts point out the compensation scheme is now being funded by the Government and not the Post Office - so I'm a bit unclear how slowing down compensation payments would affect the Post Office in any way. Put simply, the provision for the loss is calculated on the basis of the rate of claims and reversal of convictions, then discounted for future value. The faster compensation payments are made the larger the provision.
You will have noted the caveats regarding government funding, for example:
At this point intime, it is not possible to accurately estimate the potential liability that may arise as a result of this process. The
Government has announced its intention to support the Group with funding to cover the cost of compensation for Postmasters affected however the funding is subject to compliance with subsidy control requirements, including referral to the SAU under the Subsidy Control Act 2022.
Yes, but compliance with that act applies to all Government funding of the Post Office - not just compensation payments. As a state enterprise of course the Government is responsible for any losses incurred. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 22, 2024 12:21:33 GMT
Wow a Tory minister lies, forget about Labour every time they open their mouths they lie.
|
|
