Mr Bates vs the Post Office

I've not read the whole thread so someone may have raised these questions before.
However.
Why did no one ask why, as a % of sub postmasters accused, was there such a high proportion of crooked ones amongst them?
Why did no one say that there seemed to be rather a lot of crooks amongst the SPs'?
Also even if all the accused were guilty, who was responsible for recruiting them?
The whole shambolic affair is disgusting and if there is any justice then Vennels and others should be doing jail time over it.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
My thinking exactly and also having been involved in franchising ( dont know if they were franchisees themselves but they were all part of a corporate chain ) for many years and I know that people in the chain talk, why weren't these individual problems highlighted between themselves a lot sooner and brought to the front before this got out of hand. I know I would have been on the phone to other sub postmasters to see if they were having the same problems instead of just accepting from the PO that ' I was the only one having problems '.
Click to expand...

You've completely underestimated the size of the post office estate considerably. They had 28000 sites at the time and only a tiny percentage were affected by the bugs. So the the chances of phoning around and finding someone in the same situation and willing to say they were were minute, sub 1% even.
 
Alm the money went not the post office coffers so all compensation should come the same way back, no bonuses, no dividends to be paid out, the tax payer shouldn’t be responsible for the bill
 
Blue Maverick said:
Alm the money went not the post office coffers so all compensation should come the same way back, no bonuses, no dividends to be paid out, the tax payer shouldn’t be responsible for the bill
Click to expand...
The Government is it's sole shareholder so wherever the money comes from it will be taxpayers paying it.
 
So in summary we are saying that the post office ceo for several years during this shocking period of time knew nothing about the biggest issue in the post office during her tenure? Completely incompetent or completely corrupt - almost certainly both. Put the **** in front of a jury
 
BringBackSwales said:
Doesn’t show a great deal of commitment to such a serious issue that the chairman of the enquiry isn’t committed enough to be there the whole time.
Click to expand...
Disagree. He explained yesterday that he couldn’t be there, but would be online. We don’t need to know the reason, but I certainly wouldn’t challenge his commitment
 
BringBackSwales said:
Doesn’t show a great deal of commitment to such a serious issue that the chairman of the enquiry isn’t committed enough to be there the whole time.
Click to expand...
I think his commitment has better been demonstrated by his actions rather than where he attends from. For example his interim report on compensation. I also know that Sir Wynn has the full confidence of core participents.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Joining the dots still here and I still think the govn are at the bottom of this scandal. I wonder if she will drop them in it soon.
Click to expand...
Not if she has been given financial promises over her pension and the bonuses she received. She ran the PO but was not aware of anything that was going on.

Pull the other one.
 
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