Mr Bates vs the Post Office

[ganganvince]

Just how did Adam Crozier (former head of the FA then subsquently chairmsn of ITV before his current junket at BT), avoid being in the Mr Bates drama. The Post Office was, after all, part of the Royal Mail when the scandal began...

https://archive.ph/WdocG

As the program was made for ITV its possible he still has influence.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not seen this yet, but I will.

Had some dealings with all this on one occasion, very much on the periphery.

A guy from the Post Office looked me in the eye and told me that the system was fine, and I told him he was talking bullshit and to open his eyes.

Anyone looking at this objectively could only point to the accounting system as being the most likely reason. The system working meaning all these previously honest people turning into tea leaves as soon as they become Postmasters.

You’d have to be insane to believe that.

What happened to those people was criminal but I’m not sure a criminal threshold of proof was passed.

So hope I’m wrong.

Terrible business.

 

[BlueAnorak]

As the program was made for ITV its possible he still has influence.

Nail. Head.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

I've always firmly believed that anyone who makes it to the position of a large corporate CEO, especially a serial CEO at numerous different corporations, is effectively a psychopath.

Normal, non-psychopathic people just simply don't possess that ruthless and insatiable drive and desire to have power and control over so many other people's lives along with a craving for the recognition and authority that comes with it.

Despite the obscene financial renumeration that these CEO's receive its not actually about the money for them, it's all about satisfying their personal lust for power, control, status and recognition.

Exactly what I meant. Very eloquently explained.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Not seen this yet, but I will.

Had some dealings with all this on one occasion, very much on the periphery.

A guy from the Post Office looked me in the eye and told me that the system was fine, and I told him he was talking bullshit and to open his eyes.

Anyone looking at this objectively could only point to the accounting system as being the most likely reason. The system working meaning all these previously honest people turning into tea leaves as soon as they become Postmasters.

You’d have to be insane to believe that.

What happened to those people was criminal but I’m not sure a criminal threshold of proof was passed.

So hope I’m wrong.

Terrible business.

For me its not just about criminal activity of their actions, its the lack of care, the lack of trying to check their own systems for errors. And then afterwards the attacks upon subpostmasters and what they were saying, not wanting to pay compensation, not actually clearing up the final remaining cases.

The rules they operate under (In my experience) are archaic, they treat their staff, customers, mail/parcels with contempt, as if we should count ourselves lucky they deliver stuff for us. Their police force, investigations team, still think they are working for the queen/king and treat staff/customers as such.

For me its been one of the shoddiest businesses I have worked for where things are literally held together by elastic bands. Yet staff are held to account if we dont deliver. Dont get me wrong, I love my job but its been an eye opener working for them.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

For me its not just about criminal activity of their actions, its the lack of care, the lack of trying to check their own systems for errors. And then afterwards the attacks upon subpostmasters and what they were saying, not wanting to pay compensation, not actually clearing up the final remaining cases.

The rules they operate under (In my experience) are archaic, they treat their staff, customers, mail/parcels with contempt, as if we should count ourselves lucky they deliver stuff for us. Their police force, investigations team, still think they are working for the queen/king and treat staff/customers as such.

For me its been one of the shoddiest businesses I have worked for where things are literally held together by elastic bands. Yet staff are held to account if we dont deliver. Dont get me wrong, I love my job but its been an eye opener working for them.

Yes, I know what a rewarding role it can be, and where it places you in the local community.

One of the most despicable things is that many of these people were the very best of us. Hard working, community focused, entrepreneurial and honest.

As you say it was the attitude after things started unravelling that was even more reprehensible than what went before it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I've always firmly believed that anyone who makes it to the position of a large corporate CEO, especially a serial CEO at numerous different corporations, is effectively a psychopath.

Normal, non-psychopathic people just simply don't possess that ruthless and insatiable drive and desire to have power and control over so many other people's lives along with a craving for the recognition and authority that comes with it.

Despite the obscene financial renumeration that these CEO's receive its not actually about the money for them, it's all about satisfying their personal lust for power, control, status and recognition.

I think this is about right.

That said, it’s probably better having them doing that than living in dark attics and committing mass murder.

 

[jacko74]

I think this is about right.

That said, it’s probably better having them doing that than living in dark attics and committing mass murder.

Thats the common misconception about psychopaths, even the ones that are murderers.... they're far from all being social misfits and loners sat howling in the dark corner of their basements.

They're far more likely to be people who want to be in positions of authority and respectability due to their desire for power, control, recognition etc.

As I mentioned previously the PO CEO was directly responsible for driving people to commit suicide and utterly destroying the lives of many other people and their families, all whilst holding a position in the clergy as well as her corporate role... to all intents and purposes she was another Shipman, just without the actual hands on murdering.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thats the common misconception about psychopaths, even the ones that are murderers.... they're far from all being social misfits and loners sat howling in the dark corner of their basements.

They're far more likely to be people who want to be in positions of authority and respectability due to their desire for power, control, recognition etc.

As I mentioned previously the PO CEO was directly responsible for driving people to commit suicide and utterly destroying the lives of many other people and their families, all whilst holding a position in the clergy as well as her corporate role... to all intents and purposes she was another Shipman, just without the actual hands on murdering.

Yeah, I wasn’t being entirely serious mate! Should have put an exclamation mark tbf.

I’m well aware thst plenty of psychopaths have well developed social skills.

Not quite with you on the last part, but that doesn’t mean I have anything but contempt for her.

 

[jacko74]

Yeah, I wasn’t being entirely serious mate! Should have put an exclamation mark tbf.

I’m well aware thst plenty of psychopaths have well developed social skills.

Not quite with you on the last part, but that doesn’t mean I have anything but contempt for her.

Why can't you agree with the final part?

She was a person held in the highest regard not only in the corporate world but also in the church... yet she was knowingly and directly responsible for driving people to kill themselves, as well utterly destroying the lives of many more people and their families.

Other than she didn't actually do the killing 'hands on' herself I don't see any difference at all between the levels of evilness between her and Shipman.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Not seen this yet, but I will.

Had some dealings with all this on one occasion, very much on the periphery.

A guy from the Post Office looked me in the eye and told me that the system was fine, and I told him he was talking bullshit and to open his eyes.

Anyone looking at this objectively could only point to the accounting system as being the most likely reason. The system working meaning all these previously honest people turning into tea leaves as soon as they become Postmasters.

You’d have to be insane to believe that.

What happened to those people was criminal but I’m not sure a criminal threshold of proof was passed.

So hope I’m wrong.

Terrible business.

Your post reminded me of one aspect of the hearings in the Inquiry that I found troubling. If you listen to some of the testimony of the less senior staff (see Elaine Cottam's that I posted earlier in the thread for one example), you start to get a clear impression that many of them still believe to this day that the postmasters were in fact stealing.

In Cottam's hearing she repeatedly refers to the presence of a sub-postmaster's husband in the branch, alluding to him being suspicious, but refusing to elaborate further when pushed. And she adamantly refers to the actions of the sub-postmaster as "false accounting" with zero caveats.

If you pair this with some of the comments from the Horizon helpdesk staff, and the tone of the emails that are found within evidence, you start to see a pattern of social engineering. And I don't use that term lightly. The evidence suggests that the Post Office execs created, engendered, and rewarded an almost cult-like adherence to their narrative. They basically gaslighted their staff with so much corporate propaganda that some of them, even today, point-blank refuse to see the truth.

That's very concerning, it's the stuff of Jonestown.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Why can't you agree with the final part?

She was a person held in the highest regard not only in the corporate world but also in the church... yet she was knowingly and directly responsible for driving people to kill themselves, as well utterly destroying the lives of many more people and their families.

Other than she didn't actually do the killing 'hands on' herself I don't see any difference at all between the levels of evilness between her and Shipman.

Because I don’t think it’s as bad. Or evil. Doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s both those things.

Why? Well for a start I don’t think she set out with the intention of causing people’s deaths at the outset, or at all. Shipman did. That represents a fundamental difference in legal culpability.

Shipman was a predator, she wasn’t imo.

Shipman took pleasure out of it, I don’t believe she did.

And yes she had a respectable public persona, but, as a doctor, so did Shipman.

I think she is an obstinate, arrogant, and cowardly woman, but not as bad as Shipman.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Your post reminded me of one aspect of the hearings in the Inquiry that I found troubling. If you listen to some of the testimony of the less senior staff (see Elaine Cottam's that I posted earlier in the thread for one example), you start to get a clear impression that many of them still believe to this day that the postmasters were in fact stealing.

In Cottam's hearing she repeatedly refers to the presence of a sub-postmaster's husband in the branch, alluding to him being suspicious, but refusing to elaborate further when pushed. And she adamantly refers to the actions of the sub-postmaster as "false accounting" with zero caveats.

If you pair this with some of the comments from the Horizon helpdesk staff, and the tone of the emails that are found within evidence, you start to see a pattern of social engineering. And I don't use that term lightly. The evidence suggests that the Post Office execs created, engendered, and rewarded an almost cult-like adherence to their narrative. They basically gaslighted their staff with so much corporate propaganda that some of them, even today, point-blank refuse to see the truth.

That's very concerning, it's the stuff of Jonestown.

Yes, that was the impression I got from the guy from the Post Office.

And btw, there will have been some Postmasters bang at it, like there always had been, but never in anything resembling this scale.

It was the sheer numbers that provided the biggest clue as to where the culpability lay.

 

[yerwot?]

The owners and heads of mass media are complicit in so many cover-ups, through lack of coverage, out-right lies, smear campaigns, phone-hacking etc. Agenda-driven headlines, coupled with a disenfranchised electorate of an archaic fptp, (much-loved by the mp gravy train cabal) is why democracy is dead. This PO scandal is just the latest in a long line of travesties of justice, but wont be the last, history makes that all too obvious. The contaminated blood victims, the care-home deaths, the carriage-door failures that killed and injured more than Hillsborough , the Bradford fire white-wash, (the ninth business to go up in flames owned by one man) NO-ONE TO BLAME....FFS. Westminster, the mother of all Parliaments, mother of all Cover-ups more like

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We hear about all these people who were wrongly convicted, but I wonder how many who were charged were acquitted. I wonder how many juries saw through the fog.

They couldn’t, of course, look at the bigger picture. They could only look at the evidence in each particular case, which will have been compelling.

So my guess is: ‘not many’.

Makes the whole thing even more unjust.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Several have had their convictions CONFIRMED at appeal!

 

[metalblue]

Yes, that was the impression I got from the guy from the Post Office.

And btw, there will have been some Postmasters bang at it, like there always had been, but never in anything resembling this scale.

It was the sheer numbers that provided the biggest clue as to where the culpability lay.

Playing devils advocate maybe before horizon there was no reconciliation of takings etc in the way the Horizon (supposedly) provided. Management might look at it take the view it had uncovered the dishonesty that was previously there, particularly if they didn’t have any reliable data before to guess at numbers.

What I found weird was how some were affected and not others. I’m guessing, from the ITV drama, they suggest it might have been down to intermittent connectivity issues. Nonetheless assuming the ITV drama is a fairly accurate characterisation of what happened that the IT support folks were correcting lots of issues should have sent alarm bells ringing. Feels like nobody in management wanted to admit issues to anyone else in management.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Playing devils advocate maybe before horizon there was no reconciliation of takings etc in the way the Horizon (supposedly) provided. Management might look at it take the view it had uncovered the dishonesty that was previously there, particularly if they didn’t have any reliable data before to guess at numbers.

What I found weird was how some were affected and not others. I’m guessing, from the ITV drama, they suggest it might have been down to intermittent connectivity issues. Nonetheless assuming the ITV drama is a fairly accurate characterisation of what happened that the IT support folks were correcting lots of issues should have sent alarm bells ringing. Feels like nobody in management wanted to admit issues to anyone else in management.

Just watching it now, and yes you’ve always got to be wary about dramatic representations.

I don’t doubt it did uncover some of that, but many of these people were relatively new to the role.

I’m well aware of the challenges attached to entrusting people with cash. More than most I’ll hazard. But I also know that previously honest people (and people who will have been vetted as such) don’t suddenly become dishonest in those numbers. In that way. With those sums of money. Not when the system they operate under is so robustly policed and enforced.

It simply doesn’t add up.

Anyone stepping back and looking at this should have seen this.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I've always firmly believed that anyone who makes it to the position of a large corporate CEO, especially a serial CEO at numerous different corporations, is effectively a psychopath.

Normal, non-psychopathic people just simply don't possess that ruthless and insatiable drive and desire to have power and control over so many other people's lives along with a craving for the recognition and authority that comes with it.

Despite the obscene financial renumeration that these CEO's receive its not actually about the money for them, it's all about satisfying their personal lust for power, control, status and recognition.

Excellent post. Somthing I believe to be true myself.

 

[TinFoilHat]

So the two parties responsible are in control of the compo to be given out.

I doubt anyone will see it.

:(