Mr Bates Vs The Post Office

notanon

rze99 said:

I'm avoiding because it would make me too angry. I don't need any help with that in January.

Actually, not a bad shout. Very upsetting.

Greatape

Not seen it yet, but have heard that Adam Crozier's role is omitted? 

p90fool

Adam Crozier was Royal Mail. 

Misterg

p90fool said:

Adam Crozier was Royal Mail. 

Royal Mail Group *was* the Post Office until 1st April 2012.

Adam Crozier was the CEO of Royal Mail Group from 2003 to 2010 (when Paula Vennells took over), so was in charge at the time that Sub Post Masters were being hounded and prosecuted due to errors in the computer system. Arguably it was his tenure that set the precedent for how such cases were treated.

Arguably, the TV programme joins the story after he left, but it still seems a strange omission.

From 2010 to 2017, Adam Crozier was chief executive of ITV.

(The petition to strip Paula Vennells of her CBE is almost at 400,000 signatures now.)

p90fool

Ah ok, thanks @Misterg ;
My missus works for Royal Mail and always stresses the separation between them and Post Office Counters, I didn't realise they were overlapping at the time. 

Sporky

I worked for a company that provided training yi the Post Office (well before any of this), and iirc the Post Office was split into four divisions - from memory Royal Mail, who carried the letters and small parcels, Parcelforce, who lost the larger parcels, Post Office Counters who ran the Post Office branches, and I think Quadra who did the catering and internal non-mail logistics and stuff.

Over 20 years ago now so not totally accurate. At best. 

Reverend

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67894818
more people coming forward

Devil#20

The thing that got me was the amount of obfustication of the Post Office. Under freedom of information each subpostmaster requested all their files held on them as were just sent sheets of totally dedacted text. That's not FOI. Also they unilaterally closed down the mediation process. They were happy to appeal any decision against them until prosecution ran out of money as they had much more of the taxpayers money to waste. The PO ended up pretty much skint at the end themselves and had to be bailed out from central government funds, wasting even more tax payers money. They ruined hundreds of livelihoods and didn't give a toss as long as they covered their arses. At least 4 people took their own lives over this scandal and many more had serious mental health issues.  

BillDL

I read in a few articles that the judge presiding in the Bates v Post Office case described the scenario as having been the result of "institutional obstinacy".  That is a very good choice of wording.

lapua65

Probably the most emotive program I have ever seen. I have a question though; Why if the Sub Post Masters won the case where they were all exonerated, did they have to pay the legal fees from the £58m award? I thought the system would have made the Post Office pay the fees? 

bluecat

That was my very some thoughts, it is like they only half won, having to pay their own legal fees.
Should be an appeal against that.

Misterg

lapua65 said:

 Why if the Sub Post Masters won the case where they were all exonerated, did they have to pay the legal fees from the £58m award? I thought the system would have made the Post Office pay the fees? 

My understanding is that they didn't actually "win the case". They were obviously winning towards the end of proceedings, but then, as a delaying tactic, the PO accused the judge of bias towards the SPMs and asked him to 'recuse' himself (i.e. sack himself from the case).  To follow this through would have taken many more months, and possibly a repeat of the trial. The SPMs side had run out of money at this point and couldn't afford that, so they either had to drop the case, or reach a negotiated settlement with the PO (rather than the settlement being decided by the court).

ICBM

BillDL said:

I read in a few articles that the judge presiding in the Bates v Post Office case described the scenario as having been the result of "institutional obstinacy".  That is a very good choice of wording.

I would say it’s extremely generous.

Obstructive, malicious, corrupt, dishonest and cynical are words I would choose before obstinate.

I would say there has been a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice, probably perjury committed, and prosecutions need to take place.

Kittyfrisk

I see the Met police are to investigate the PO.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189
It sounds like good news, but given their history it's a bit like getting Harold Shipman to investigate Peter Sutcliffe...

snowblind

The Horizon scandal is really just symptomatic of one of the major flaws in human society namely our reliance on the use of money. Money as a concept is a mistake. It is essentially just an act of faith but it twists our motivations such that the acquisition of money becomes paramount over all other considerations. Anything that threatens the process of acquisition and the gathering of monetary wealth has to be smothered, regardless of the cost to lives and well-being. The post office issue being discussed here, the contaminated blood products issue, thalidomide, asbestosis and mesothelioma, even the general standard of food production are all examples of where the bulk of the affected population is told to be quiet and do not upset the apple cart. All in the name of someone making a profit.

Until our species can raise its collective level of intelligence to the point at which we can move past war, money, politics and religion we're stuck with what we've got. 

One of our other more self-defeating traits is an insistence on putting idiots in charge. Half the world's "leadership" is a mixture of narcissists, psychopaths and charismatic but fundamentally stupid individuals. A few more genuinely intelligent people in charge and the planet could have a much more optimistic future.

Rob1742

My take out on this is just what I learnt a few years ago. Took me years to work it out, but came to a conclusion a while back.

As humans the majority will pick a side and back it whether it’s right or wrong and this is always the cause of our downfall.

Tory or labour, Ukraine or Russia etc etc. 

In this case they hit a point where they knew they could be wrong, but rather than admit it, they fought as one. People will have joined the ranks knowing they are causing hurt to others, but the gang mentality took over.

I recall working for a company and I raised a point that I thought should be aired. It was controversial, but it was like a pack of animals after you after that as people sided with the boss and it was about positioning yourself and self preservation rather than the issue I raised. I didn’t last in that business much longer. 

It will happen over and over again as it’s our key flaw. We take sides and block off what we perceive to be the enemy. 

The main CEO decided to fight when she knew her organisation was wrong, and she had an army that fought with her. 

Jono111

Why are.the police investigating now, did they not know about it before the TV show came out. 

DefaultM

Jono111 said:

Why are.the police investigating now, did they not know about it before the TV show came out. 

When they say investigating they mean they're going to watch the show and then say "yeah it's bad that. Nothing we can do though".

Jono111

Still at least the police are able to spend time looking for war crimes in Gaza.

m_c

Jono111 said:

Why are.the police investigating now, did they not know about it before the TV show came out. 

From the BBC article-

The investigation was launched in January 2020 following a referral from the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions].

My guess is there won't be any publicly apparent progress until after the public enquiry concludes, which is probably why some witnesses are being rather forgetful.