bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
funny how Inquiries cause collective memory loss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mr Bates vs the Post Office
- Thread starter bluethrunthru
- Start date
funny how Inquiries cause collective memory loss
Only had time to watch the first 5 minutes, I look forward to seeing it all later.
ganganvince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 6,283
We owned a Post office from 2005 till 2014 the Mrs was Post Master never had anything to the extent these have but did have a couple of £500 ish shortages put the cash in and moved on makes you wonder though.
BedsBlue68
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 246
Same here - dont think we have got so emotional watching anything before - absolutely outrageousI stayed up to past 3am to watch all 4 episodes on ITVX ( awful platform BTW ) as the first episode left me so boiling with anger I know I'd never get to sleep.
its a Barm
Well-Known Member
truly shocking events that ruined many lives
On a very small scale when I worked in Betting Shops in the 80’s for William Hill I was at one time a “relief manager” which meant I covered for days off, sick amd holidays. It was surprising how many cashiers would till up at the end of the day and if they were short they’d put the money in themselves, however if it was the other way around and they had a surplus they declared it. I would never allow it to happen under my watch but other Managers were quite happy to let it go as they thought it showed they ran an efficient shop.We owned a Post office from 2005 till 2014 the Mrs was Post Master never had anything to the extent these have but did have a couple of £500 ish shortages put the cash in and moved on makes you wonder though.
I saw low paid staff who were probably on about £4 an hour at the time putting more than their hourly rate back into a Public Listed company, ridiculous really.
ganganvince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 6,283
Contractually we were responsible for shortfalls and had to balance the office every Weds normally we roughly balanced but there were a few occasions when there were unexplained losses but never surpluses looks like we were lucky.On a very small scale when I worked in Betting Shops in the 80’s for William Hill I was at one time a “relief manager” which meant I covered for days off, sick amd holidays. It was surprising how many cashiers would till up at the end of the day and if they were short they’d put the money in themselves, however if it was the other way around and they had a surplus they declared it. I would never allow it to happen under my watch but other Managers were quite happy to let it go as they thought it showed they ran an efficient shop.
I saw low paid staff who were probably on about £4 an hour at the time putting more than their hourly rate back into a Public Listed company, ridiculous really.
It seems that we perhaps need to revisit the Companies Act.
I do understand the principle of incorporation and limitation of liability to provide protection for personal assets in the event of a company insolvency.
However if this and Grenfell and the PPE scandal are anything to go by it now also seems to provide protection against prosecution for any kind of abhorrent behaviour or any kind of damage or death.
If no-one goes to prison for any of these then they are almost literally getting away with murder because they are executives that can hide behind a corporate veil and avoid responsibility for their actions.
It becomes hard to argue that someone stealing a coat, or pretending to drown at sea in a canoe to collect insurance money should spend years in jail when these highly remunerated so called professionals can cause so much pain hurt and damage to so many people and yet walk the streets as free men/women with a handsome pension/pay-off.
I do understand the principle of incorporation and limitation of liability to provide protection for personal assets in the event of a company insolvency.
However if this and Grenfell and the PPE scandal are anything to go by it now also seems to provide protection against prosecution for any kind of abhorrent behaviour or any kind of damage or death.
If no-one goes to prison for any of these then they are almost literally getting away with murder because they are executives that can hide behind a corporate veil and avoid responsibility for their actions.
It becomes hard to argue that someone stealing a coat, or pretending to drown at sea in a canoe to collect insurance money should spend years in jail when these highly remunerated so called professionals can cause so much pain hurt and damage to so many people and yet walk the streets as free men/women with a handsome pension/pay-off.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
It seems that we perhaps need to revisit the Companies Act.
I do understand the principle of incorporation and limitation of liability to provide protection for personal assets in the event of a company insolvency.
However if this and Grenfell and the PPE scandal are anything to go by it now also seems to provide protection against prosecution for any kind of abhorrent behaviour or any kind of damage or death.
If no-one goes to prison for any of these then they are almost literally getting away with murder because they are executives that can hide behind a corporate veil and avoid responsibility for their actions.
It becomes hard to argue that someone stealing a coat, or pretending to drown at sea in a canoe to collect insurance money should spend years in jail when these highly remunerated so called professionals can cause so much pain hurt and damage to so many people and yet walk the streets as free men/women with a handsome pension/pay-off.
Limitation of liability is for civil matters not criminal though isn't it?
If you have acted dishonestly assets can be seized.