Mr Bates and the post office

[ellal]

It seems common for class actions to identify a pool of compensation, with payments out to those who demonstrate basic eligibility, like the diesel emissions scandal. PO fraud compensation would fit this model.

How would it fit this 'model' of compensation?

People lost an easily calculable amount in the diesel scandal, and it wasn't in the grand scheme of things a huge loss...

But did anyone lose their marriage or house, get a criminal conviction or go to jail, or commit suicide due to buying a fraudulently sold car?

 

[blup]

How would it fit this 'model' of compensation?

People lost an easily calculable amount in the diesel scandal, and it wasn't in the grand scheme of things a huge loss...

But did anyone lose their marriage or house, get a criminal conviction or go to jail, or commit suicide due to buying a fraudulently sold car?

There was major fraud by many claimants in that case. Problem is you can’t really compensate for a lost marriage. The other way is to heavily snd personally fine the major shareholders, hit them where it hurts and they will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

 

[ellal]

There was major fraud by many claimants in that case.

So are you saying that there was major fraud committed by many of those who bought cars whose emissions were rigged and have claimed compensation in lieu of false selling of a product?

How so?

Problem is you can’t really compensate for a lost marriage.

But you can claim punitive damages...

The other way is to heavily snd personally fine the major shareholders, hit them where it hurts and they will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Like that would work

Most major shareholders are corporate bodies who would tie up any legal process in the courts for decades...

Because they can afford it!

 

[blup]

So are you saying that there was major fraud committed by many of those who bought cars whose emissions were rigged and have claimed compensation in lieu of false selling of a product?

How so?

Talking about the Gulf of Mexico

But you can claim punitive damages...

Not afaik

Like that would work

Most major shareholders are corporate bodies who would tie up any legal process in the courts for decades...

Because they can afford it!

It would send a message if you seriously hurt their pockets, more effective than any criminal sanctions

 

[transam]

not post office related as such

But on the news this afternoon some company
( cannot remember the name) bought a load of land off the government they wanted rid of for £1 an acre

The buildings / plant on the site had a scrap value of 50 million which they trouserd

The site needed cleaning up which cost the company 15 million of which 2 x thirds were paid for by the tax payer so it cost the company 5 million

They than sold the land and site to a wind farm developer for 78 million

In two years the company trouserd 140 million profit

 

[ellal]

Talking about the Gulf of Mexico

You talked of the diesel car emissions scandal in that post

Not afaik

Yes you can...

"Section 34 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013"

Also known as exemplary damages, retributory damages or vindictive damages. Damages awarded in excess of the claimant’s loss.

It would send a message if you seriously hurt their pockets, more effective than any criminal sanctions

How exactly would you 'seriously hurt' their pockets when the system is set up to protect those pockets?

Personally I'd go for criminal sanctions as a spell in jail (or the threat of) does wonders for loosening of the tongues of those who know where the money went

 

[blup]

You talked of the diesel car emissions scandal in that post

To establish that big class actions set aside a pool of compensation that people claim from. It was mexico where there was significant fraud because the claims were almost automatically accepted. PO claimants are quite different

Yes you can...

"Section 34 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013"

Also known as exemplary damages, retributory damages or vindictive damages. Damages awarded in excess of the claimant’s loss.

Don't see how you can punish someone for marriage breakdown other than actual losses. I'm talking about 10's of millions of civil fines against institutional shareholders, far more than even punitive damages would go.

How exactly would you 'seriously hurt' their pockets when the system is set up to protect those pockets?

Personally I'd go for criminal sanctions as a spell in jail (or the threat of) does wonders for loosening of the tongues of those who know where the money went

Criminal sanctions are difficult when so many different parties can blame somebody else. Remember it was judges and juries who convicted and punished, are we to imprison them as well?

 

[Brigadier]

Remember it was judges and juries who convicted and punished, are we to imprison them as well?

Depends if they lied, or not.

Although I do wonder how not one single person in the judiciary thought "hang on a minute, this doesn't make any sense"?

 

[ellal]

Although I do wonder how not one single person in the judiciary thought "hang on a minute, this doesn't make any sense"?

They probably believed that each victim was an individual case, not a corporate cover up...

Because the evidence that it was anything else was withheld from the judiciary, and the victims were also told they were the 'only one' at fault!

Those who were instrumental in the cover up should serve serious jail time (in lines with the maximum for perverting the course of justice), but it will never happen...

Corporates will pay out 'blood money' to protect their own and their overall financial interests!

 

[JohnD]

not post office related as such

But on the news this afternoon some company
( cannot remember the name) bought a load of land off the government they wanted rid of for £1 an acre

The buildings / plant on the site had a scrap value of 50 million which they trouserd

The site needed cleaning up which cost the company 15 million of which 2 x thirds were paid for by the tax payer so it cost the company 5 million

They than sold the land and site to a wind farm developer for 78 million

In two years the company trouserd 140 million profit

Perhaps the mayor will flee the country like Shirley Porter did, to evade justice.

in January 1987 Westminster City Council sold three cemeteries, three lodges, one flat, a crematorium and over 12 acres of prime development land in London for a total of 85 pence, on Porter's orders; the cemeteries were re-sold by the purchaser for £1.25 million on the same day that he had acquired them.

In 1989 over 100 homeless families were removed from hostels in marginal wards and placed in the Hermes and Chantry Point tower blocks in the safe Labour ward of Harrow Road. These blocks contained a dangerous form of asbestos, and should have either been cleaned up or demolished a decade before, but had remained in place due to funding disputes between the City Council and the by now abolished Greater London Council. Many of the flats had had their heating and sanitation systems destroyed by the council to prevent their use as drug dens, others had indeed been taken over by heroin users and still others had pigeons making nests out of asbestos, with the level in flats in Hermes and Chantry Points well above safe norms. One former homeless refuge was sold off at a discounted price to private developers and converted into private flats for young professional people at a cost to the ratepayer of £2.6 million.

Just another sleazy Tory.

 

[blup]

Depends if they lied, or not.

Although I do wonder how not one single person in the judiciary thought "hang on a minute, this doesn't make any sense"?

I imagine the defence didn't have the resources to follow up their suspicions the software was faulty.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I'm not making any direct comment on whether this is true, or not, but I'm sure every one will have an opinion.

If there is any truth in it, then just wow

Row deepens between Kemi Badenoch and ex-Post Office chair

The business secretary and ex-Post Office chair have clashed over comments about compensation.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Doug99]

I'm not making any direct comment on whether this is true, or not, but I'm sure every one will have an opinion.

If there is any truth in it, then just wow

Row deepens between Kemi Badenoch and ex-Post Office chair

The business secretary and ex-Post Office chair have clashed over comments about compensation.

www.bbc.co.uk

If the discussion with the senior civil servant was supported by emails, it will be the end of Badenoch. I assume she would have checked and checked again with the civil service whether there was any record. But that would be too much common sense for a politician.

 

[Brigadier]

If the discussion with the senior civil servant was supported by emails, it will be the end of Badenoch. I assume she would have checked and checked again with the civil service whether there was any record. But that would be too much common sense for a politician.

She comes across as a ball-buster, which can be good - if you want results - and also terrible - if she's trying to double-down to tough out a lie.

Time will tell.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

She comes across as a ball-buster, which can be good - if you want results - and also terrible - if she's trying to double-down to tough out a lie.

Time will tell.

It's often not the action that destroys a politician, but the attempted cover ups.