The Post Office Scandal

Sluffy wrote:Alan Bates: 'They didn't like me standing up to them'.


Seems Mr Bates view of the Post Office management is similar to my opinion of you...

You were parodied, Sluffy,  because you were perpetually muddying the waters and being just plain stupid. No other reason.

As Judge Judy would put it, "You haven't got your listening ears on or your thinking head" and only getting worse.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Alan Bates: 'They didn't like me standing up to them'.


Seems Mr Bates view of the Post Office management is similar to my opinion of you...

I made fun of you, Sluffy,  because you were perpetually muddying the waters and being just plain stupid. No other reason.

As Judge Judy would put it, "You haven't got your listening ears on or your thinking head" and you are only getting get worse.

And I make fun of you Bob because you believe you are better than everyone else - and you are not.

I might well be plain stupid, but even so I've pointed out errors that you've made, so you certainly aren't as perfect as you like to believe you are if someone who is 'plain stupid' like me can point your errors out and correct you when you've got things wrong!

As Alan Bates would put it "You don't like it much when I stand up to you, do you".

Look Bob, despite what you and no doubt most others think, I don't come on here looking for an argument but if anyone wants to have a pop at me, then I'll give them one back.

I've no idea why something an Administrator did to Anderson and Davies five years ago, or what the score is between FV and PBP seems to mean so much to you but if you want to go to war over it with me - and you have - then I will give it you back as no one knows, apart from those involved what actually happened, and your conjecture on these matters isn't necessarily correct as to what did happen, any more than mine is.  You've gone for a conspiracy theory and a deliberate defaulted debt whereas I've gone for an ultra vires contract and a renegotiated deal.  

I like to think my view is far more grounded in reality but I don't claim that I am right and you are wrong - as you do to me - and I haven't become personal and demeaning towards you as you have towards me.

If you want to carry on having a pop at me, then that's entirely up to you but I think we both know that you are one of those who like to give it but doesn't like it when it's given back.

You don't like being stood up to.

Which is exactly the same as what Alan Bates stated about the Post Office Management yesterday.

Guys just have your argument over PM as you are both ruining threads and no doubt putting the very few members that we do have from returning and joining in the discussions.

Thank you.

Forums like ours have long since had their day and been replaced by newer and vastly more popular forms of social media, so I very much doubt people would any more rush to be on here if Bob took his obsessions (and his pops at me) and I my response to them, off the public forum, anymore than if we continued doing so.

As I've said, and clearly not been believed, I don't come on to here to look for confrontation or arguments, but I won't run from them either - and clearly one or two aren't used to someone standing up to them and don't like it.

The answer as always seemed simple to me - namely people shouldn't start something they can't finish.

I'm not here to be trolled, wummed, abused, ridiculed or anything else apart to find the latest news on BWFC and a bit of a laugh whilst doing so.

I like to think I do my bit in respect of the 'news' part of it - I post up tweets and breaking news more often than most and I start threads on other stuff that interests me (I started this one for instance) and I do enjoy having a laugh, both in real life and on here, albeit most of my laughs on here are laughing at those so desperately trying to not admit to being wrong, or the possibility that someone else like me may know something more than them on certain things, for instance, like a lifetime career working IN government gives me a better understanding of how it works much more than someone who has worked part time in a NON GOVERNMENT organisation!

There is no reason why just because we share a common interest in BWFC that we should all get on, I certainly know many BWFC fans in real life that I would actively avoid if I could and no doubt some would do the same about me.

I don't have anytime for those who deliberately lie, or those who abuse others.

Saying that though I can tolerate them on sites like this and leave them be but if they want to go to war with me then I'll give it back to them.

Tough luck if they don't like it - as I strongly suspect they simply aren't used to people standing up to them in their real lives.

The internet isn't real life and I'll never understand why some people seem to take things so personally on here and rather lie and abuse rather than simply admit they got it wrong or that there is alternative ways at looking at something?

But that is exactly what they do, do!

And no doubt do exactly the same in real life too!

You could have warned him in a post or even a PM. The next stage would have beeen a 24 hour ban and so on.

There's no need for this tripe.

Well you might consider it tripe but it is a reality, the average age of forum users is well north of fifty and twice the age of newer social media trends such as Telegram and Tik Tok users.

And fwiw I have warned him, and everybody else for that matter, that I'm not here to be trolled, but it's just seen as empty words to most and when I did act with Wanderlust you and others went ballistic (although I'm sure most of you wouldn't mind a jot if I banned Bob - because he's not popular and Wanderlust was - but that wouldn't be treating people equally would it?).

You and BTID have the power to ban whoever you want, including myself but power comes with great responsibility, so use it wisely.

That's how I've try to use it anyway.

No. Whilst Wanderlust did wrong many many many moons ago you have constantly poked him until he has retaliated and you still can’t let it go to this day or else you wouldn’t have brought it up.

I have told you both to stop it a couple of times now. If I were to try and get BTID on side and block you then I would have done it a very long time ago if that’s the case but I’m not spiteful or whatever and would have spoken to you in the back room. It’s simply not cricket is it and I don’t play like that.

So do us all a favour and give it a rest FFS!

karlypants wrote:No. Whilst Wanderlust did wrong many many many moons ago you have constantly poked him until he has retaliated and you still can’t let it go to this day or else you wouldn’t have brought it up.

I have told you both to stop it a couple of times now. If I were to try and get BTID on side and block you then I would have done it a very long time ago if that’s the case but I’m not spiteful or whatever and would have spoken to you in the back room. It’s simply not cricket is it and I don’t play like that.

So do us all a favour and give it a rest FFS!

Eh???

I 'brought up' Wanderlust simply because he was the one and ONLY example of where I warned someone off trolling me or I would ban them - and actually went ahead and did!!!

And you talk about ME letting it go, what about this totally unproved bile from him about me, from just last month???

wanderlust wrote:How many years have you been spreading doom and gloom about the club's finances?

It's a fucking miracle we still exist - and frankly if anyone attaches a shred of credibility to your bullshit they want their heads seeing to. Fortunately they don't and you're a laughing stock, not just on this forum.

If we go under, it's been a great ride, but until then, do us all a favour and shut the fuck up. Tosser.

And for the record...

Sluffy wrote:I reckon the next reported loss will be more likely to be around the £6-7m mark.

Sluffy wrote:
The company’s loss for the year was £6,770,937 (2022 - £8,145,076 loss).  (Company Balance Sheet page 11)

...not bad I would say from someone who is tosser, with no credibility, who talks bullshit and is a laughing stock on this and other forums.

And I'm the one who carries around all the grudges you reckon?

You don't seem to get your head around the fact that I don't start these things - I'm the one who gives it back to them - what do you want me to do, just sit there and take it?

I don't remember you siting back and taking it when you banned him immediately he posted something racist about your wife?

And I didn't blame you either.

And have you forgotten so soon the lead up to my post to Bob on here?

Let me remind you...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Silly question, Sluffy, but  was it a 5-minute argument you wanted or the full half-hour?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:So it’s the full half-hour. And then some.

Then on another thread...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:"Certainly, Sir. Have you been here before".

...back to the origanal thread...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:One thing I know for sure, Sluffy, is that you 'lost it' some time ago.

Lets be succint, I also know that it would be folly to even begin to explain the mindless meanderings and multiple misrepresentations that in your head passes for 'thinking'.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Poor old Sluffy. He's not the purveyor of long-winded, rambling, prattle that we know and love so well. And heaven forbid that anyone should think he was the kind of person that could start an argument in an empty room.

Oh no, that must be someone else. Sluffy's just the misunderstood victim of naughty boys out to do him down; a bit like Prince Harry and Humza Yousaf.

...then on to yet another thread...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm certainly not the biggest 'dick' that posts on here...

That could just be false modesty, Sluffy.
I'd say that you shouldn't undersell yourself.

...then now to this thread (the FOURTH thread it has now spilled over to)...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:You were parodied, Sluffy,  because you were perpetually muddying the waters and being just plain stupid. No other reason.

As Judge Judy would put it, "You haven't got your listening ears on or your thinking head" and only getting worse.

And what was my post that got your knickers in such a twist...???

Sluffy wrote:Alan Bates: 'They didn't like me standing up to them'.


Seems Mr Bates view of the Post Office management is similar to my opinion of you...

Sluffy wrote:Bob had a pop at me because he doesn't like to be stood up to, nothing at all to do with this thread at all.

If you and BTID want to get together and ban me then go ahead.

But as long as I'm on here and people want to have a pop at me, then I'll laugh at them and give them one back.

I can't believe people take the internet so seriously.

Clearly they do though.

Kia ora to you all!

Lady B and I watched today's proceedings at the Post Office Inquiry with great interest.

First up was Lord Arbuthnot, one of the heroes of this case. Arbuthnot was calm, measured and entirely plausible.

Less calm imo was retired High Court Judge, Sir Anthony Hooper, but his evidence was nonetheless  well worth listening to.

The, now deceased, retired SPM that I knew seemed resigned to the fact that he was being ripped off by POL. Resistance was futile and there was a bigger picture that he needed to focus on.

I'm unsure whether his son did succeed him as owner of the SPO but, if he did, he couldn't have had it for long. By 2004 the SPO had been closed and converted into a private residence

karlypants wrote:You could have warned him in a post or even a PM. The next stage would have beeen a 24 hour ban and so on.

There's no need for this tripe.

I agree KP. But let Pebble speak for me.

Fwiw a public warning should obviously be made PUBLIC and I HAVE REPEATEDLY made it known that I am not on this forum to be trolled, wummed, abused or anything similar.

They ONLY time I actually enforced my warning of banning anyone for doing so was when I banned Wanderlust and look what a shitstorm that created...

I think some of you forget that the internet is not real life and people think they can say or do whatever they want but they certainly would NEVER say those same things to your face would they?

People can be knobs and dickheads in real life but they are a thousand times worse on social media because they have no barriers of restraint as they would in a real world situation.

They'd get punched in their face if they did no doubt!

It's pretty clear to me that I'm having to deal with some folk who have mental health issues and others who are used to getting their own way all the time and browbeat / abuse / intimidate / control those they view as beneath them in their real lives such as their employees or junior work colleagues (maybe even their wife and children too?) and come on to Nuts expecting to get their own way here too.

Is there any real need to lie, when you have got something wrong on here, to deliberately abuse, troll or wum and even hold grudges and vendettas against someone because they pointed out your lies, or came up with a different explanation to something that you had?

I get that all the time on here.

I take all their shit and laugh it off, laugh at them.

Shame some of you can't see it for what it really is.

Its Dave Y Smith day today. He was the POL  CEO that commissioned the Ismay 'whitewash' report.

His oral evidence seems to be a bit inconsistent with his written statement. I expect Jason Beer would have nailed him if he'd been the interrogator but he isn't and Sir Wyn has stepped in. Short adjournment, whilst notes are compared possibly.

Post-adjournment, Smith gets a self-incrimination warning from Sir Wyn before Flora Page barrister for  SPMs  accuses Smith of engaging  in 'a cover-up'.

Ms Page is really fired up and its not hard to see why.

Afternoon session comes alive when Sam Stein KC goes for the jugular on ex-POL chairman, Sir Michael  Hodgkinson.

"Did any of those companies prosecute its own staff", asked Stein in reference to ALL the other companies Hodgkinson had previously worked for.


Start around 6:15:00

What interests me more than anything is the element of non disclosure.

I don't find it too strange that people like Hodgkinson might well have not known about the failings in Horizon, he is after all dependant on what he is briefed on from his CEO - he's not had first hand experience of the system and if he is assured that Horizon is 'robust' then I don't see any reason why he shouldn't believe what has been reported to him as being the truth - and from then on his mindset is that if the system is correct then the SPMs MUST be the ones at fault.

It seems clear from what has come out over the recent months that there seem to be a culture within the corporate PO management of 'hiding' the fact that all was not 'right' with the Horizon system but this should have come out at least at some point during the legal prosecutions disclosure of information to the defence.

I'm sure I read somewhere of some top legal advisor reporting something along the lines that if they stopped an ongoing prosecution because of the 'found' questionability of the Horizon system, then that would make unsafe all the successful prosecutions they had secured up to that point and stay all future prosecutions as well.

That to me is certainly the 'known' pivotal moment when the non disclosure of this fact wasn't acted upon and the PO deemed the cost to the business was greater than the cost to the individual SPMs and their family's.

(Maybe there is an earlier pivotal moment that I am unaware of?)

Whoever took the decision to deliberately withhold disclosure and not act on it is/are the people responsible for all the injustice from that point on.

Prior to that it may have been in good faith that SPM had been prosecuted being that 'all' those involved in prosecuting then fully believed that the Horizon system was infallible.  (Still an injustice of course but not done with any malice aforethought).

Clearly once it was known that the Horizon system was accessible by Fujitsu staff unknown to the SPM themselves, then everything became unsafe in terms of prosecutions.

Everyone thereafter who knew this and continued to prosecute and/or cover up is clearly guilty of the subsequent miscarriages of justice.

If doesn't necessarily follow that the likes of Hodgkinson knew about this - it simply may have deliberately been kept from them.

I amazed that the head of legal at the PO didn't act once they became aware of prosecutions being potentially unsafe - and why full disclosure wasn't passed on - or rather why they simply stayed all prosecutions until they resolved that Horizon was indeed robust (which it turns out it wasn't) and then reported to the Law Lords (or whoever it is?) that all previous convictions were now perceived to be unsafe.

Clearly massive financial implications both in compensation awards and 'securing' that Horizon was indeed 'robust' from that point on.

No doubt massive political implications too.

If somebody told me that a system was 'robust', I would ask what they meant exactly. It would always have sounded unconvincing to me.

It now seems clear that, in this case, it meant sufficient for the purposes of management and nobody else mattered.  The workforce that had to operate it could be driven to despair, to suicide, to bankruptcy and/or imprisonment but they were just the little people and who cared about them. Evidently no-one in management.

Sir Michael got off lightly, much too lightly.

I like to think if I was involved in this in someway that I'd ask the question as to if it was normal that there seemed to be so many SPM apparently dipping their hands in to the till.  

Believe it or not, it seemed to me some years ago that there often seemed a lot of cases of SPM in the newspapers - not that I thought much about it other than that.

I used the phrase 'robust' simply because that was the word the PO management used - I've no doubt they used it in the sense of the system being 'secure' as they certainly acted as though it was.

My point being that if I was the field marshal and my generals told me the troops were advancing on my right, I would believe them, I wouldn't look for myself - so if Hodgkinson was told by the PO 'generals' that Horizon was 'secure' I would believe them and not check it out for myself, well not initially anyway, in the same way as if my troops never appeared to have advanced, even after being told they had - and Horizon 'theft' kept occurring even though I'm told the system is secure.

I'm not decrying the fact that human tragedies happened - of course they did - and the likes of Hodgkinson et al, in their positions at the top of the organisation have to shoulder responsibility for what happened under their stewardship of the PO but what I'm suggesting is that it is more than feasible that they never actually personally knew about it, as they were led to believe Horizon was infallible, and we all now know it wasn't.

What I am trying to understand is at what point did it become known that it wasn't and who were those who sat on or squashed the reporting of it and stopped the process of rectifying what had been done to the innocent and allowed the crime (for that has what it now has become) from continuing for several years more.

I think it may be a bit harsh to say the 'management' didn't care, if indeed some of the 'management' simply did not know it was going on at least in the early years.

Did Hodgkinson know or not know?

If he never did, then how could he be held personally accountable (other than by dint of his position as Chair?).

Tbh I don't know enough about corporate legal liability in such an instance - I would imagine that the PO itself would be liable and named officers shown to have withheld information that would have stayed prosecutions but I don't know the liability of the Board and Chair if they were never made aware of the facts at the time?

Sluffy wrote:I like to think if I was involved in this in someway that I'd ask the question as to if it was normal that there seemed to be so many SPM apparently dipping their hands in to the till.  

Believe it or not, it seemed to me some years ago that there often seemed a lot of cases of SPM in the newspapers - not that I thought much about it other than that.

I used the phrase 'robust' simply because that was the word the PO management used - I've no doubt they used it in the sense of the system being 'secure' as they certainly acted as though it was.

My point being that if I was the field marshal and my generals told me the troops were advancing on my right, I would believe them, I wouldn't look for myself - so if Hodgkinson was told by the PO 'generals' that Horizon was 'secure' I would believe them and not check it out for myself, well not initially anyway, in the same way as if my troops never appeared to have advanced, even after being told they had - and Horizon 'theft' kept occurring even though I'm told the system is secure.

I'm not decrying the fact that human tragedies happened - of course they did - and the likes of Hodgkinson et al, in their positions at the top of the organisation have to shoulder responsibility for what happened under their stewardship of the PO but what I'm suggesting is that it is more than feasible that they never actually personally knew about it, as they were led to believe Horizon was infallible, and we all now know it wasn't.

What I am trying to understand is at what point did it become known that it wasn't and who were those who sat on or squashed the reporting of it and stopped the process of rectifying what had been done to the innocent and allowed the crime (for that has what it now has become) from continuing for several years more.

I think it may be a bit harsh to say the 'management' didn't care, if indeed some of the 'management' simply did not know it was going on at least in the early years.

Did Hodgkinson know or not know?

If he never did, then how could he be held personally accountable (other than by dint of his position as Chair?).

Tbh I don't know enough about corporate legal liability in such an instance - I would imagine that the PO itself would be liable and named officers shown to have withheld information that would have stayed prosecutions but I don't know the liability of the Board and Chair if they were never made aware of the facts at the time?

If Hodgkinson didn't know what was going on, he's a prize twerp, if he looked the other way he's a scoundrel. Sir Anthony Hooper's evidence was that it was obvious that there was summat not reet and it plainly was obvious.

It was just as obvious that senior management didn't give a hoot about the workforce and couldn't wait before congratulating each other when another SPM 'bit the dust' based on dodgy evidence and the withholding of evidence from the courts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13297349/Post-Office-boss-apologises-pregnant-subpostmistress-Horizon-payments-scandal.html

I noticed that no-one asked how much Sir Michael Henderson and Dave Y Smith each got paid for not knowing what was going on.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If Hodgkinson didn't know what was going on, he's a prize twerp, if he looked the other way he's a scoundrel. Sir Anthony Hooper's evidence was that it was obvious that there was summat not reet and it plainly was obvious.

It was just as obvious that senior management didn't give a hoot about the workforce and couldn't wait before congratulating each other when another SPM 'bit the dust' based on dodgy evidence and the withholding of evidence from the courts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13297349/Post-Office-boss-apologises-pregnant-subpostmistress-Horizon-payments-scandal.html

I noticed that no-one asked how much Sir Michael Henderson and Dave Y Smith each got paid for not knowing what was going on.

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...

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.