News1 min ago
Post Office - Computer ( Horizon ) Scandal
22 Answers
Panorama - available on catch up - I watched it twice
700 sub postmasters convicted of fraud when they said at the time that the computer was saying 'no' when it should have said 'yes'
everyone latterly running for cover. solicitor tearful as she told some punters to plead guilty and " she wouldnt have done if she knew what she knows now"
great.
I watched carefully as documents they said didnt exist did in fact exist
golly how did they achieve that ? One the document is acknowledged it is a simple matter to enforce disclosure - - but how did they overturn the 'no , aint got any of them...' denaials ?
The post office ( legal costs £150m so far) are disputing ever conviction, so all 700 may have to be separately litigated....
did any one else watch ?
700 sub postmasters convicted of fraud when they said at the time that the computer was saying 'no' when it should have said 'yes'
everyone latterly running for cover. solicitor tearful as she told some punters to plead guilty and " she wouldnt have done if she knew what she knows now"
great.
I watched carefully as documents they said didnt exist did in fact exist
golly how did they achieve that ? One the document is acknowledged it is a simple matter to enforce disclosure - - but how did they overturn the 'no , aint got any of them...' denaials ?
The post office ( legal costs £150m so far) are disputing ever conviction, so all 700 may have to be separately litigated....
did any one else watch ?
Answers
For anyone seeking a summary of the programme's content:
https:/
https:/
The Post Office must have known something was going wrong. Too many hitherto honest people were experiencing "discrepancies"
Bosses must have been aware of what was going on and continued to insist their system was OK.
I think a deep investigation should be instigated to discover who knew what was really going on and when - then give them a jail sentence.
What an absolutely appalling way to treat good people!
Bosses must have been aware of what was going on and continued to insist their system was OK.
I think a deep investigation should be instigated to discover who knew what was really going on and when - then give them a jail sentence.
What an absolutely appalling way to treat good people!
obviously jno had NOT seen it
it is on catch up
I looked with a view how did they uncover the denied documents? - somewhat specialised angle. And of course the concealed documents tear a hole in the principal case
Someone on AB has averred ( ha!) that he, the poster, was one, did a parallel excel spreadsheet and it was done and dusted in a day or two
PACE 1984 was changed so that 'the computer was always right'. and the post office can bring their own criminal cases.
I dont expect there to be a criminal case. Too many will say that they had no idea. Another case ( terrorism: parents sent airfare to son in Syria (1) ) rehearsed SWEET v PARSLEY [1970] AC 133 (HL) which said you had to have criminal intent.
each case is being considered on its merits as the Post Office insist some actually did it.
.
1. John Letts, 58, and Sally Lane, 56, were each charged with entering into a funding arrangement for the purposes of terrorism.
and thank yo for appearing QM ( four months silence)
it is on catch up
I looked with a view how did they uncover the denied documents? - somewhat specialised angle. And of course the concealed documents tear a hole in the principal case
Someone on AB has averred ( ha!) that he, the poster, was one, did a parallel excel spreadsheet and it was done and dusted in a day or two
PACE 1984 was changed so that 'the computer was always right'. and the post office can bring their own criminal cases.
I dont expect there to be a criminal case. Too many will say that they had no idea. Another case ( terrorism: parents sent airfare to son in Syria (1) ) rehearsed SWEET v PARSLEY [1970] AC 133 (HL) which said you had to have criminal intent.
each case is being considered on its merits as the Post Office insist some actually did it.
.
1. John Letts, 58, and Sally Lane, 56, were each charged with entering into a funding arrangement for the purposes of terrorism.
and thank yo for appearing QM ( four months silence)
I've followed this story for long time, from back when Private Eye were just about the first to expose the shortcomings of the Horizon computer system. I remember cutting out the articles and sliding them under the glass to the postmaster of my village post office. Thankfully, he was not affected.
What has always puzzled me (among many things) is how somebody could be convicted of stealing, say £40,000, and end up in prison without the money being shown to be in any account or anywhere that the accused had access to. If I had been accused of fraud, I would have said 'okay, show where this money has gone and that I had access to, or control of it'. I'm sure they would have done, but it seems to no avail - how can that be?
The whole thing beggars belief, and I reckon it has a long way still to run.
What has always puzzled me (among many things) is how somebody could be convicted of stealing, say £40,000, and end up in prison without the money being shown to be in any account or anywhere that the accused had access to. If I had been accused of fraud, I would have said 'okay, show where this money has gone and that I had access to, or control of it'. I'm sure they would have done, but it seems to no avail - how can that be?
The whole thing beggars belief, and I reckon it has a long way still to run.
I wondered that
where did the moolah go?
BUT that is not necessary for a theft conviction
and altho I regret it, SOMETIMES when the prosecution gets the ball ( admission of some guilt over something) they stop.
when the lady said - "and I took the money out" - they stopped and charged me. Also the interviews excluded lawyers and then resulted in criminal charges. Judges said that was OK when it was tested.
in a good going cack up, never underestimate the role of sheer incompetence.
where did the moolah go?
BUT that is not necessary for a theft conviction
and altho I regret it, SOMETIMES when the prosecution gets the ball ( admission of some guilt over something) they stop.
when the lady said - "and I took the money out" - they stopped and charged me. Also the interviews excluded lawyers and then resulted in criminal charges. Judges said that was OK when it was tested.
in a good going cack up, never underestimate the role of sheer incompetence.
I don't think that I could cope with being accused of something that I am completely innocent of.
This case should have never happened.
After a few postmasters were considered to be cooking the books surely the Post Office would have been suspicious about multiple persons being suspected of the crime.
It was pure arrogance to presume that they (and their computers) were right and the postmasters were crooks.
This case should have never happened.
After a few postmasters were considered to be cooking the books surely the Post Office would have been suspicious about multiple persons being suspected of the crime.
It was pure arrogance to presume that they (and their computers) were right and the postmasters were crooks.
Yes, I watched. I've followed the case over the years. It is absolutely disgusting.
> I think a deep investigation should be instigated
A public inquiry is under way:
https:/
> I think a deep investigation should be instigated
A public inquiry is under way:
https:/
wolf: "It was pure arrogance to presume that they (and their computers) were right and the postmasters were crooks. " - Worse, in the Panorama program it's revealed that at at some point they knew but ploughed on because they didn't want the spurious prosecutions to come out. They just ploughed on. Disgusting.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
