Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » The Post Office Scandal

The Post Office Scandal

+5
wanderlust
boltonbonce
BoltonTillIDie
Whitesince63
Norpig
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 7]

61The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Fri Apr 12 2024, 14:32

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

If someone is TOLD that Horizon can only be accessed by the SPM then how could they 'KNOW' what was going on?

If they are TOLD that a THEIEF has been caught, prosecuted in open court, found guilty by a jury and imprisoned, then why should he not think it was 'brilliant news'?  Do you think they were told anything about her being pregnant and it being her son's birthday - that's the media just sensationalising the fact - blame the jury for finding her guilty and the judge for sentencing her as no doubt they would have been told that by her defence barrister in mitigation.

And again what does it matter what Smith or Hodgkinson (NOT Henderson - I thought you didn't make any mistakes???) or anyone else was paid in their posts if all the facts were hidden from them - how were they supposed to have known otherwise?

It's the ones who DID know who are the ones who did all this - are they not?

Yes we KNOW something wasn't right NOW but hindsight is a wonderful thing and if you are assured by those who are supposed to know these things that Horizon could only be accessed by the SPM - then what would you think at the time - I would have believed them, that's what their job is, to inform me of the facts in order to make decisions on.  Why would I not believe them - initially at first at least?

You've become part of a lynch mob Bob, 'hang them all' I thought you would be better than that seeing that you were rational and level headed and sought the truth when the lynch mob wanted to string Anderson up...
Not getting any better, are you Sluffy; and its plain you're not going to.

It wouldn't be hard for me to imagine you like these POL bozos that were doubtless paid excessively whilst they overlooked the blindingly obvious.

Go on then, tell us all how the likes of Smith and Hodgkinson (NOT Henderson) KNEW that Horizon was in anyway faulty at the time - the following quotes taken from your link (had you not read it before posting it perhaps???)

SMITH -

Counsel to the inquiry Sam Stevens asked Mr Smith: 'How could you take comfort from that (Ismay) report that a further investigation by an IT expert or a forensic accountant wasn't required?'

He answered: 'At the time the fundamental piece was that we believed the system was tamper proof so the Fujitsu position that was laid out was quite clear.

'We had not seen in any of the recent cases any issue that would suggest a problem, and in fact a few weeks later, as we now know wrongly, but at the time, we saw the Seema Misra case as a test of the Horizon system, and it had come through that. And so those were the fundamental reasons.'

Smith clearly believed the system was tamper proof and the 'test case' of Misra proved it to them at the time - we NOW KNOW that was wrong.

Also -

The former managing director of Post Office Limited said he is 'shocked and frankly appalled' at claims the organisation knew of faults in the Horizon IT system while prosecuting a pregnant subpostmistress, whose conviction has since been overturned.

Barrister Flora Page, speaking on behalf of a number of subpostmasters, said the Post Office legal team had become aware of the software's faults but continued with the prosecution of the subpostmistress anyway.

Mr Smith said: 'I am shocked and frankly appalled if that is in fact the sequence of events, and I didn't know about it.'

Smith DIDN'T KNOW he was being kept in the dark by his own legal manager.


HODGKINSON (NOT Henderson)

Meanwhile, the former chairman of the Post Office said he had 'no idea' how the organisation's board was kept in the dark about large financial counter-claims made by subpostmasters.

Reference the case of Julie Wolstenholme, Sir Wyn Williams, who is leading the Horizon IT inquiry, said to Sir Michael Hodgkinson: 'I can understand how the more senior these people are the more discretion they may have to act, and they make a judgment about whether to bring things to the board, etc...'

'But going back to [Ms] Wolstenholme's case where she's claiming £188,000 from the Post Office, which in 2003/4 is a substantial amount of money, and I don't know precisely how much Ms Wolstenholme was paid, but all the indications are that it was a very significant sum of money.

'I'm intrigued as to how that could have happened without the board being involved - can you help me with that?'

Sir Michael responded: 'I've got no idea.'

Hodgkinson was also kept in the dark about Horizon issues.



Yes they both could be lying but I doubt it, I know from the inside how 'gatekeepers' withhold information to those above them, for many reasons, some good, some bad.

If you are going to hang Smith and Hodgkinson (Not Henderson) and you are clearly in the lynch mob, then make sure they actually were a KNOWING party to the throwing of the SPMs under the bus because they both seem to me completely unaware at the time as to what actually was going on with Horizon.


A true story, I was once asked by the leader of a Council following a meeting with the authorities Chief Executive and other Chief Officers about an issue, and I told him the true facts - the facts were the complete opposite as to what he had just been told - he was deliberately being kept in the dark and misled, presumably whilst the Chief Executive sorted out the mess they had brought about.

These things actually do happen in real life.


With your attitude on here to others, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if people you've lorded it over, often kept you completely in the dark on many things too.

I bet you've never ever thought of that before, had you?

62The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Fri Apr 12 2024, 16:15

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

It's true that boards can only act on the information they are given by their advisors or secretariats but surely the wrong questions are being asked - unless the investigators are laying a trap and actually have evidence that they were briefed correctly - and usually there are briefing papers, emails, etc which would shed light on that although they are probably long gone by now.
But to ask someone "how they were kept in the dark" is an unanswerable question..

If they are laying the blame at the door of the advisors, the onus of proof that they did brief the board will lie with them. Somebody is at fault. 

Hook them all up to a polygraph?

63The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Fri Apr 12 2024, 16:38

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

You're really being completely naive about how the system in public bodies actually work.

Everything is reported and documented - people cover their own arse if you like.

There won't be any 'trap' or 'hidden' 'briefing papers' or undisclosed 'emails' - as Management Team and committee (and sub-committee) meetings or Board meetings as in the case of Royal Mail at the time, everything is reported in the minutes and signed off.

All these minutes are kept as permanent records - even confidential meetings.

If anyone had such documents they would have long ago been submitted to the Inquiry as evidence.

Individuals giving reports on 'sensitive' issues 'up the line' would themselves keep copies for their own records too!

They would be the whistle-blowers - and there are none that have emerged from within the PO.

People lower down the chain have kept a lid on the issues - seems to be a PO culture issue to my way of thinking -  kill the messengers (careers) sort of thing.

Similar in a way which happened to me.


If you forgive me for saying so again once again, you certainly DO NOT KNOW how government works from your experience of working in a NON GOVERNMENT Organisation.

64The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sat Apr 13 2024, 07:49

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Another interesting day at th'Inquiry'. Yesterday's first witness was 'thick as pig...t', Alan Cook, POL CEO 2006-2010.

https://news.sky.com/story/post-office-scandal-ex-boss-makes-personal-apology-most-strongly-to-wronged-subpostmasters-13113389

Next up was ex-Saatchi and Saatchi and the FA, the smarmier  than smarmite, Adam Crozier. He claimed to know FA about the prosecutions of SPMs. Crozier's questioning didn't really get interesting until a barrister for the SPMs got stuck in: 1:25:27




Crozier couldn't quite remember how many £millions he was paid for not knowing what was going on on his watch.

65The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sat Apr 13 2024, 08:01

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

You really are an idiot. I never even mentioned the minutes. I was talking about the briefings which are BEFORE the meetings, not the minutes taken DURING the meeting and circulated AFTER the meeting.

You must be incredibly naive if you think that board and committee members are getting the information they need  in the actual meeting for the first time. No government minister I ever worked with was daft enough to go into a meeting unprepared - they were all fully briefed in advance, often by me and these are the conversations and - in the case of less sensitive stuff - emails etc to which I was referring.

No board member - and I would apply this across the spectrum of both public and private sectors - attends a meeting "blind" and 99% of the time they have already decided what they are going to say and how they are going to vote in advance. The meeting itself is usually a formality unless there is a startling revelation during the course of it which there seldom is (and if there is there will be consequences for the secretariat/advisors for failing to anticipate it)

All of which implies to me that you weren't trusted and were kept out of the loop/inner circle.
Given the condescending bollocks you spout on here I can fully understand why.

66The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sat Apr 13 2024, 08:19

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

wanderlust wrote:You really are an idiot. I never even mentioned the minutes. I was talking about the briefings which are BEFORE the meetings, not the minutes taken DURING the meeting and circulated AFTER the meeting.

You must be incredibly naive if you think that board and committee members are getting the information they need  in the actual meeting for the first time. No government minister I ever worked with was daft enough to go into a meeting unprepared - they were all fully briefed in advance, often by me and these are the conversations and - in the case of less sensitive stuff - emails etc to which I was referring.

No board member - and I would apply this across the spectrum of both public and private sectors - attends a meeting "blind" and 99% of the time they have already decided what they are going to say and how they are going to vote in advance. The meeting itself is usually a formality unless there is a startling revelation during the course of it which there seldom is (and if there is there will be consequences for the secretariat/advisors for failing to anticipate it)

All of which implies to me that you weren't trusted and were kept out of the loop/inner circle.
Given the condescending bollocks you spout on here I can fully understand why.
I expect that you might be right in your conclusions, Lusty.

Amongst Sluffy's various habits, is a tendency towards overanalysis and embellishment and inadvertently taking the narrative up blind alleys and cul-de-sacs.

Chairmen and CEOs are usually not keen on that sort of thing neither are they keen on  having things recorded in minutes in ways that they would rather not have recorded in minutes.

Its not about Sluffy though, is it, even if he thinks it is?

I'd have thought Cajunboy might have been interested in all this. One of the earliest and more significant cases concerned Cleveleys Post Office, almost in Cajun's backyard.

The Post Mistress at Cleveleys wasn't cowed into submission and, with the help of her expert witness, seems to have given PO and Fujitsu a  good thrashing. Yet the silence about this important case has been deafening. 

Fee, fi, fo, fum 
I smell a confidentiality deal 
and a compensation sum.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Sun Apr 14 2024, 09:52; edited 1 time in total

67The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sat Apr 13 2024, 12:00

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:You really are an idiot. I never even mentioned the minutes. I was talking about the briefings which are BEFORE the meetings, not the minutes taken DURING the meeting and circulated AFTER the meeting.

You must be incredibly naive if you think that board and committee members are getting the information they need  in the actual meeting for the first time. No government minister I ever worked with was daft enough to go into a meeting unprepared - they were all fully briefed in advance, often by me and these are the conversations and - in the case of less sensitive stuff - emails etc to which I was referring.

No board member - and I would apply this across the spectrum of both public and private sectors - attends a meeting "blind" and 99% of the time they have already decided what they are going to say and how they are going to vote in advance. The meeting itself is usually a formality unless there is a startling revelation during the course of it which there seldom is (and if there is there will be consequences for the secretariat/advisors for failing to anticipate it)

All of which implies to me that you weren't trusted and were kept out of the loop/inner circle.
Given the condescending bollocks you spout on here I can fully understand why.


You really have no idea do you?

How do you think items get on to the agenda of meetings in the first place?

They have to be agreed by the Chairman in advance.

The Chairman would have to see and approve agenda items - meaning his managers would have to brief him as to what they are about and what they mean in advance of the agenda even being circulated, let alone the meeting being held and the minutes of them being taken.

(It is worth noting that the whole system is a hierarchy in that the CEO reports to the full Council/ the Board, the Management Team reports to the CEO, the members of the Management Team are heads of service and hold their own internal Management Teams comprising of their line managers - therefore if information is deliberately withheld lower down the chain, it simply does not reach the levels above it - meaning that if the CEO is unaware of Horizon problems, he cannot make the Board and its Chair aware of the issue and that's why Smith and Hodgkinson said in all honesty what they did at the Inquiry.)

I was the person whose job it was to control all of this on behalf of the authorities Chief Executive and all members of the Management Team and take the minutes of the various meetings and committees.  I was if you like the gatekeeper who controlled the whole process in order to monitor that the authority was acting in compliance with the law.

The whole process is design that ALL the relevant information on the agenda items being discussed in the meetings are fed in and presented to the members of the group, committee, board, etc, in order for them to make their decisions upon.

The point I'm making which clearly YOU (and Bob) don't understand is that if something is held back from the process then those making the decisions in the meetings, committees, Board Room, etc are oblivious to them and obviously do not take them into account (and thus the injustices in this instance continue unabated) - re Smith

The former managing director of Post Office Limited said he is 'shocked and frankly appalled' at claims the organisation knew of faults in the Horizon IT system while prosecuting a pregnant subpostmistress, whose conviction has since been overturned.

Barrister Flora Page, speaking on behalf of a number of subpostmasters, said the Post Office legal team had become aware of the software's faults but continued with the prosecution of the subpostmistress anyway.

Mr Smith said: 'I am shocked and frankly appalled if that is in fact the sequence of events, and I didn't know about it.'

Re Hodgkinson -

Meanwhile, the former chairman of the Post Office said he had 'no idea' how the organisation's board was kept in the dark about large financial counter-claims made by subpostmasters.

Reference the case of Julie Wolstenholme, Sir Wyn Williams, who is leading the Horizon IT inquiry, said to Sir Michael Hodgkinson: 'I can understand how the more senior these people are the more discretion they may have to act, and they make a judgment about whether to bring things to the board, etc...'

'But going back to [Ms] Wolstenholme's case where she's claiming £188,000 from the Post Office, which in 2003/4 is a substantial amount of money, and I don't know precisely how much Ms Wolstenholme was paid, but all the indications are that it was a very significant sum of money.

'I'm intrigued as to how that could have happened without the board being involved - can you help me with that?'

Sir Michael responded: 'I've got no idea.'


It's quite evident to me that PO CEO and thereafter the Chair and Board Members were not being briefed on these matters at all - they were NOT hiding them as you seem to believe ("give them all polygraph tests" - which aren't even consider admissible in legal cases in this country anyway) - and they were NOT excessively overpaid Bozos overlooking the blindingly obvious as Bob seems to believe - they simply had not been told about them and were completely just left in the dark about them by the legal executives who similarly withheld disclosure documents that cases were unsafe and possibly as well the then person responsible for the legal compliance for the PO organisation if they also knew that prosecutions were now unsafe too.

I've no doubt that after the inquiry is over that legal cases will be made against those who brought about this catastrophe - Smith and Hodgkinson will NOT be involved - they DIDN'T KNOW about Horizon NOT being secure - they were led to believe the opposite by their own key staff.

There are no briefing papers, emails, etc which would shed light on things as Wanderlust seems to think there must have been - the issues about Horizon were simply kept from them.

I might well spout condescending bollocks but at least I know what I'm talking about - unlike you, tell us all again how the Sue Gray report will state exactly what Boris wants her to say...



...because you KNOW how GOVERNMENT works from you time working in a NON GOVERNMENT Organisation.

:facepalm:

68The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sun Apr 14 2024, 09:00

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

You have to wonder how a plonker like Cook ever got appointed to run the Post Office.
It seems apparent that it was actually him and the POL Board that had their hands in the subbies till and they were too far up themselves to comprehend any of it.

SUPPORT ALAN BATES.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/13/post-office-horizon-inquiry-operators-private-prosecutions-alan-bates

69The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sun Apr 14 2024, 09:40

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

The highest paid director of POL, presumably Cook, got £1million for his last year at POL (not counting pension costs).

The Labour government was supporting the Ivory Towers of POL to the tune of about £150m p.a. at the time, so Cook wasn't exactly 'short of cash in a recession'.

Pat McFadden seems to have been the Minister that Cook was closest to. Cook dropped that one in whilst being questioned on Friday.

McFadden is another that seems to have suffered from convenient memory loss.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1853628/Pat-McFadden-Post-Office-Scandal

70The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Sun Apr 14 2024, 12:08

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Pat McFadden and Sir Ed Davey will appear before the Inquiry on 18 July. 

Half a day each doesn't seem enough to me. Happily the Inquiry team will be further down the line by then and better-placed to nail any obfuscation. Not that Ministers (or former Ministers) would ever try do such a thing, of course.  No No

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-5-and-6-timetable

71The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Mon Apr 15 2024, 09:53

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

No sign of anyone from POL auditors, Ernst and Young, in the latest line-up for the Post Office Inquiry.


https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-5-and-6-timetable

Alan Bates and his advisors might be wondering why.

72The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Apr 16 2024, 15:11

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

From this morning at the inquiry...

This week starts with another two former Post Office bosses. First up is David Miller.

He joined the Post Office in 1970 as a management trainee. By 1995 Miller had moved to the Horizon project, becoming its Programme Director in 1998 - so intimately involved in Horizon's delivery.

The next year he became MD of the Post Office Network before moving on to become Chief Operating Officer. Miller will have known about the early technical problems with Horizon so what did he do with that knowledge when he got promoted?

Analysis

14:32
Miller's evidence reinforces number of missed opportunities
Emma Simpson
Business correspondent, at the inquiry

David Miller had umpteen chances to tell the board, his new CEO and those involved with the prosecutions all about the issues and problems with Horizon which were apparent right from the start.

But he didn’t do it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68818721

Now what was it I was saying earlier on this thread...

Sluffy wrote:The point I'm making which clearly YOU [Wanderlust] (and Bob) don't understand is that if something is held back from the process then those making the decisions in the meetings, committees, Board Room, etc are oblivious to them and obviously do not take them into account (and thus the injustices in this instance continue unabated).


Almost as though I KNOW what I'm talking about on things I spent my career working in...



A former Post Office executive has said he regrets a "missed opportunity" to halt the Horizon scandal in 2004.

David Miller, a former Post Office chief operations officer, told the public inquiry into the Horizon scandal he regretted not reading a report compiled by an IT expert.

The report found the IT system was "clearly defective".

The report in question was written by IT consultant Jason Coyne who was commissioned by the Post Office as an expert witness for a civil case that the Post Office brought against sub-postmistress Julie Wolstenholme, who ran a branch in Cleveleys, Lancashire.

The Post Office pursued her for £25,000 and as part of the case, instructed Mr Coyne to assess whether she was responsible for the losses.

When he flagged discrepancies in the software, he was "effectively sacked" and the Post Office "attempted to discredit the report internally", according to Mr Coyne.


I told Post Office the truth about Horizon in 2003, IT expert says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-67921974

Mr Miller, who prior to promotion was in charge of getting the Horizon system up and running, earlier told the inquiry he should not have told the Post Office board the system was "robust" in 1999.

He was recorded as saying the system was "fit for purpose" at a board meeting in July 1999 after testing.

However, Mr Miller admitted he was aware that sub-postmasters were having problems with it a month before.

For more than 15 years from 1999, the Post Office insisted Horizon was robust when prosecuting sub-postmasters.

But many were having difficulty balancing accounts during a live trial of the system in May 1999.

Mr Miller was also aware of other problems with the system that had occurred during testing that March.

And in August of that year, auditors EY flagged concerns with "accounting integrity issues" during a live trial of Horizon to Mr Miller.

He had previously told an inquiry into the Horizon scandal that he would not have told the board in 1999 that the system was robust.

But giving fresh evidence to the inquiry on Tuesday, he said that although he did not recall telling the board that, if it was noted in the minutes* then he must have done.

"I should not have said that it was robust," he said.

Mr Miller was in charge of putting the Horizon system in place from 1998 until early 2000. After that, he rose up the ranks to become chief operations officer.

Mr Miller also said he regretted not letting the head of the Post Office investigations team, Tony Marsh, and group lawyers know about problems with inaccuracies in the system which were still being addressed in early 2000.

"On reflection, and I have reflected on this very hard, when I finished being the Horizon programme director [in early 2000] it would have been very beneficial if I had notified both the lawyers and the [investigations team] that Horizon was a new system coming in, and that they should be very cautious about evidence coming out of that system," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68792637

* What was that I was saying about minutes in government organisations...

73The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Apr 16 2024, 23:47

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Today we were treated to the testimony of two more excessively remunerated bozos that were running the miserable excuse for a business that the Post Office was from the outset of the introduction of the Horizon system. Messrs David Miller and David Mills by name.

Representing the SPMs, Sam Stein KC summed up the days proceedings.

"You're either lying through your teeth or you're a complete incompetent", he put to the latter iirc. But it matters little which one it was; they were equally objectionable as each other.

74The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Apr 16 2024, 23:59

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Today we were treated to the testimony of two more excessively remunerated bozos that were running the miserable excuse for a business that the Post Office was from the outset of the introduction of the Horizon system. Messrs David Miller and David Mills by name.

Representing the SPMs, Sam Stein KC summed up the days proceedings.

"You're either lying through your teeth or you're a complete incompetent", he put to the latter iirc. But it matters little which one it was; they were equally objectionable as each other.

He said it to Miller NOT Mills.

God if you can remember who was called a liar to his face just a few hours ago then it seems to me you aren't listening to what is going on because you've already judge them all guilty without following the evidence.

Lynch them all, eh Bob?

Miller clearly kept a lid on things - Horizon was his 'baby' and with it his reputation and career progression on the line.  Mills seems to be someone to self important who doesn't deal with the details and expects other to do that for him.  At least he was man enough at the end to say the buck stopped with him whilst he was in charge.

Neither presented well, I agree with you on that.

75The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Apr 17 2024, 09:00

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

He said it to Miller NOT Mills.

God if you can remember who was called a liar to his face just a few hours ago then it seems to me you aren't listening to what is going on because you've already judge them all guilty without following the evidence.

Lynch them all, eh Bob?

Miller clearly kept a lid on things - Horizon was his 'baby' and with it his reputation and career progression on the line.  Mills seems to be someone to self important who doesn't deal with the details and expects other to do that for him.  At least he was man enough at the end to say the buck stopped with him whilst he was in charge.

Neither presented well, I agree with you on that.
I did remember it was Miller (not Mills) after I got into bed last night. I didn't bother getting out of bed to correct it as that would have denied Sluffy the opportunity to make a big deal of it, wouldn't it? It would have been so selfish to ruin Sluffy's evening.

The Inquiry is unmissable theatre though. Its hard not to imagine that Messrs Miller, Mills, Cook and Crozier are not ghastly characters in an Anthony Trollope novel..

76The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Apr 17 2024, 11:57

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

He said it to Miller NOT Mills.

God if you can remember who was called a liar to his face just a few hours ago then it seems to me you aren't listening to what is going on because you've already judge them all guilty without following the evidence.

Lynch them all, eh Bob?

Miller clearly kept a lid on things - Horizon was his 'baby' and with it his reputation and career progression on the line.  Mills seems to be someone to self important who doesn't deal with the details and expects other to do that for him.  At least he was man enough at the end to say the buck stopped with him whilst he was in charge.

Neither presented well, I agree with you on that.
I did remember it was Miller (not Mills) after I got into bed last night. I didn't bother getting out of bed to correct it as that would have denied Sluffy the opportunity to make a big deal of it, wouldn't it? It would have been so selfish to ruin Sluffy's evening.

The Inquiry is unmissable theatre though. Its hard not to imagine that Messrs Miller, Mills, Cook and Crozier are not ghastly characters in an Anthony Trollope novel..

Yeah right...

The Inquiry is unmissable theatre you say, yet you can't remember what you saw in the 'drama' you watched just a few hours earlier that day that only had two 'actors' in it and one moment of high entertainment...?

You've either told a fib or your memory is going...

Or both!

77The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Apr 17 2024, 15:50

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

Yeah right...

The Inquiry is unmissable theatre you say, yet you can't remember what you saw in the 'drama' you watched just a few hours earlier that day that only had two 'actors' in it and one moment of high entertainment...?

You've either told a fib or your memory is going...

Or both!
Good old Sluffy. Never fails to impress.

P.S. I think you may have meant 'judged' with a second 'd', Sluffy and when you want to use the word 'too' to mean 'also' try to remember that it needs a second 'o', old bean.

78The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Apr 17 2024, 16:28

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Yeah right...

The Inquiry is unmissable theatre you say, yet you can't remember what you saw in the 'drama' you watched just a few hours earlier that day that only had two 'actors' in it and one moment of high entertainment...?

You've either told a fib or your memory is going...

Or both!
Good old Sluffy. Never fails to impress.

P.S. I think you may have meant 'judged' with a second 'd', Sluffy and when you want to use the word 'too' to mean 'also' try to remember that it needs a second 'o', old bean.

Hahaha!!!!

Yet another when caught out has to grasp at pointing out spelling mistakes to try to divert attention away from them being wrong and not having the honesty to own up to being so.

I've never made any secret at all to being dyslexic and not being able to spell for toffee.

I've lived with it all my life.

I'm not in the least bit ashamed of it, I was born with it, it is part of who I am.

It's shaped me, but its never held me back.

I also know when people have to resort to ridiculing me for it, that they haven't got anything else in their locker - they've reached the point that they've lost the argument - and they KNOW they have!

Good for you being better at grammar and spelling than me.

Most people are.

It's no big deal to me but if it helps to fill your obvious neediness to be seen to be superior somehow, then I'm pleased for you.

Kia ora.

79The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Apr 18 2024, 09:26

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:Hahaha!!!!

Yet another when caught out has to grasp at pointing out spelling mistakes to try to divert attention away from them being wrong and not having the honesty to own up to being so.

I've never made any secret at all to being dyslexic and not being able to spell for toffee.

I've lived with it all my life.

I'm not in the least bit ashamed of it, I was born with it, it is part of who I am.

It's shaped me, but its never held me back.

I also know when people have to resort to ridiculing me for it, that they haven't got anything else in their locker - they've reached the point that they've lost the argument - and they KNOW they have!

Good for you being better at grammar and spelling than me.

Most people are.

It's no big deal to me but if it helps to fill your obvious neediness to be seen to be superior somehow, then I'm pleased for you.

Kia ora.

Dyslexia may include an inability to understand the written word but is it only dyslexia that you are suffering from, Sluffy?

The word 'disingenuous' comes readily to mind along with a few others of similar meaning.

80The Post Office Scandal - Page 4 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Apr 18 2024, 12:18

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I might well suffer from loads of things Bob but one thing I don't suffer from is a neediness to believe that I'm superior than everyone around me (and treat them accordingly) unlike you.

You very much remind me of the Emperor in Hans Christian Andersen's folktale, The Emperor's New Clothes, where everyone could see what an utter knobhead he was but they kept schtum out of fear of him until someone not scared of him like me came along and would not kowtow to him.

I've met your sort before Bob.

You've no power over me and whilst sticks and stones may break my bones, words on the internet from you, will certainly never hurt me.


Kia ora.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » The Post Office Scandal

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum