Mr Bates vs the Post Office

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.
 
ganganvince said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
hammocity said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Eebo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Limitation of liability is for civil matters not criminal though isn't it?

If you have acted dishonestly assets can be seized.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Yes, I agree with you. They knowingly didn't commission a report because they knew it would undermine their argument. It's a criminal conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Imagine taking that decision knowing you were acting illegally whilst all the time people were taking their own lives ....... gets me so angry ........ she's an ordained minister FFS - think Welby should step in
 
The whole escapade is an absolute scandal and a total disgrace and it shows how a large IT provider, a government quango (post office), and the government blob (with their corporate "I'll scratch my back you scratch mine" attitudes).work together to put the little man down.
If you think tonight's episode is bad Wednesday's and Thursday's episodes show how it all gets worse.
Only those who went to jail have so far received basic compensation!
 
Last edited:
bluethrunthru said:
Imagine taking that decision knowing you were acting illegally whilst all the time people were taking their own lives ....... gets me so angry ........ she's an ordained minister FFS - think Welby should step in
Click to expand...

She's no longer a minister. Reminds me of a medieval bishop, owning prisons and palaces. Just seems like a greedy **** who used the Church for networking.

Hopefully the incoming Labour government does right by the victims.
 
BTW the Inquiry is still on-going

Phase 4 Hearing Schedule | Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Hearings will normally take place on Tuesdays to Fridays, from 10:00 to 16:30. The below schedule is indicative and may be subject to change. Applications for public gallery attendance at November - December hearings have now closed. The hearings are streamed via the Inquiry's YouTube channel...
www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk
 
As someone who has designed and written accounting software for larger organisations, it should be impossible to change or insert auditable computer records as checksum data fields, CRC data fields, encrypted data fields etc would be incorrect when recalculated.
Data is write-once, read-many.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top