gotta definition?
Mr Bates and the post office
- Thread starter gas112
- Start date
gotta definition?
Sponsored Links
So, people making decisions on behalf of an organisation is not policy, no?
Sponsored Links
Well, yeah. Obviously.
I didn't think the PO was entirely run by our Robot-Lizard Overlords...(yet).
A cabinet meeting chaired on Tuesday morning by the prime minister is expected to discuss urgent plans drawn up by ministers to clear the names of hundreds of post office operators who were wrongly convicted of theft and fraud in the scandal.
Options are understood to include blocking the Post Office from challenging appeals by hundreds of victims, allowing operators to appeal en masse, and passing legislation that would automatically quash convictions.
But the work and pensions secretary, Mel Stride, said during interviews on Tuesday that the government was also looking at changing the rules around private prosecutions by Companies after the Post Office pursued its former employees during the Horizon scandal.
Justice Rulez@the Guardina
Corporations are not people.
I didn't think the PO was entirely run by our Robot-Lizard Overlords...(yet).
A cabinet meeting chaired on Tuesday morning by the prime minister is expected to discuss urgent plans drawn up by ministers to clear the names of hundreds of post office operators who were wrongly convicted of theft and fraud in the scandal.
Options are understood to include blocking the Post Office from challenging appeals by hundreds of victims, allowing operators to appeal en masse, and passing legislation that would automatically quash convictions.
But the work and pensions secretary, Mel Stride, said during interviews on Tuesday that the government was also looking at changing the rules around private prosecutions by Companies after the Post Office pursued its former employees during the Horizon scandal.
Justice Rulez@the Guardina
Corporations are not people.
Long after this scandal was known about, the UK government it seems didn't care...
Otherwise why would they continue to award fujitsu lucrative contracts in such vital areas as HMRC...
The latest of which was signed in 2022, when fujitsu was described as being a "trusted partner"
And just before that a contract extended which covered 'applications including VAT information exchange services, trade statistics, a computerised environment for self-assessment, and services for accounting summaries, customer overpayments and managing tax'!
Now I've highlighted one bit because I have experience of this.
I had submitted a tax return on time and thought nothing more about it.
A long time after I received a letter saying I hadn't submitted it, and the penalties were getting quite substantial.
But of course all 'penalty' correspondence had to be done by post, but things can move slowly...
However after a while I did actually get to speak to a human on the phone who (intentionally or not) let it slip that during that time period they had to use a 'backup', and there had been 'certain problems'...
Like reversing primary contact details on my account back to an accountant I no longer use, and who hadn't passed on this info.
And on login the system stated 'all taxes paid' for that period, so no further thought was given on my part.
With this in mind I wrote again, and very swiftly I had a letter saying all penalties had been dropped under "Section 54 Taxes Management Act 1970"
Now I have to say that on one hand I feel it was dealt with fairly when I got to contact people, but it took too long.
And in the back of my mind I'm thinking about how many others may have been affected and just paid up when they didn't need to just because the system told them to do so?
And what part did a 'software glitch' play?
Now I don't hold anything against the people who dealt with this fairly, but 'Section 54' is rather interesting.
I never knew it existed up to that point, but...
It is a "mechanism whereby the taxpayer and HMRC can come to an agreement settling an appeal (a ‘section 54 agreement’). This can be done at any time after the taxpayer has given notice of the appeal and before the tribunal has reached its decision, including while an internal review is in progress"
Additionally...
"The effect of a section 54 agreement is that the assessment or decision under appeal is:
•upheld without variation;
•varied in a particular manner; or
•discharged or cancelled.
The agreement, once made, has the same force as if its terms had been decided by the tribunal"
So in effect it could in some quarters be considered as a 'plea bargain' situation.
And I'm sure the rich (with expensive lawyers) have used it to their advantage...
Some outcomes good, some not - depending of course which side you are on.
All I know is it worked out for me in the end, but maybe some don't have the ability to take on the system?
Otherwise why would they continue to award fujitsu lucrative contracts in such vital areas as HMRC...
The latest of which was signed in 2022, when fujitsu was described as being a "trusted partner"
And just before that a contract extended which covered 'applications including VAT information exchange services, trade statistics, a computerised environment for self-assessment, and services for accounting summaries, customer overpayments and managing tax'!
Now I've highlighted one bit because I have experience of this.
I had submitted a tax return on time and thought nothing more about it.
A long time after I received a letter saying I hadn't submitted it, and the penalties were getting quite substantial.
But of course all 'penalty' correspondence had to be done by post, but things can move slowly...
However after a while I did actually get to speak to a human on the phone who (intentionally or not) let it slip that during that time period they had to use a 'backup', and there had been 'certain problems'...
Like reversing primary contact details on my account back to an accountant I no longer use, and who hadn't passed on this info.
And on login the system stated 'all taxes paid' for that period, so no further thought was given on my part.
With this in mind I wrote again, and very swiftly I had a letter saying all penalties had been dropped under "Section 54 Taxes Management Act 1970"
Now I have to say that on one hand I feel it was dealt with fairly when I got to contact people, but it took too long.
And in the back of my mind I'm thinking about how many others may have been affected and just paid up when they didn't need to just because the system told them to do so?
And what part did a 'software glitch' play?
Now I don't hold anything against the people who dealt with this fairly, but 'Section 54' is rather interesting.
I never knew it existed up to that point, but...
It is a "mechanism whereby the taxpayer and HMRC can come to an agreement settling an appeal (a ‘section 54 agreement’). This can be done at any time after the taxpayer has given notice of the appeal and before the tribunal has reached its decision, including while an internal review is in progress"
Additionally...
"The effect of a section 54 agreement is that the assessment or decision under appeal is:
•upheld without variation;
•varied in a particular manner; or
•discharged or cancelled.
The agreement, once made, has the same force as if its terms had been decided by the tribunal"
So in effect it could in some quarters be considered as a 'plea bargain' situation.
And I'm sure the rich (with expensive lawyers) have used it to their advantage...
Some outcomes good, some not - depending of course which side you are on.
All I know is it worked out for me in the end, but maybe some don't have the ability to take on the system?
Trolling, then.
Strange then that the governing party since 2010 previously was promoting TTIP as the way forward...
A future where companies could sue individuals/other companies/governments behind closed doors!
Not any more...
Rules to prevent companies taking private prosecutions in the way the Post Office went after innocent post office operators are being considered by the government.
Ed Davey has awkward questions to answer.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,132
- Reaction score
- 2,741
- Country
I believe they will need to legislate. I'm sure the RSPCA will object to losing the right to carry out private prosecutions. it is easily fixed by private prosecutors adopting the CPS code. So the privateer is simply funding the case. This happens all the time in pFDRs where the parties hire an independent barrister to act as "judge".
Council's and the RSP CA need to retain their prosecution role. The CP S simply won't give priority to what are relatively small frauds given their own track record on comparable crimes like shop lifting. But it's almost impossible to successfully prosecute individuals in large corporations, think of the hatfield crash, sod all happened. There are too many individuals who play a part in decisions, or non decisions, to pin it on one person. The better approach is to financially punish the organisation over a period of time so the shareholders sit up and listen
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,859
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Starmer (finally) chipped in. He ought to know, from his past. What he was saying wasn't far off D.Davis & others' line. I just hope HMG can get together and deal with it. The side with the responsibility to operate to the highest standard, failed, so never mind the details, quash the convictions, pay compensation, and put those responsible in prison. Responsibility lies with those who commissioned and specified the system and were responsible for compliance with appropriate Standards, and those who wrote the Standards. (Same with Grenfell, and on and on.)
The AIDS victims' families from bad blood in the early 80's still haven't been dealt with. Gov is waiting for the dependents to die off as well. Disgusting.
The AIDS victims' families from bad blood in the early 80's still haven't been dealt with. Gov is waiting for the dependents to die off as well. Disgusting.
Let us see the small print of any legislation (if it's ever passed) before believing a pre-election 'statement of intent'
I'd bet you a pound to a pinch of shoite that fewer than say, 555 people within the PO made those decisions that resulted in the fallacious Horizon fraud convictions
But there was plentiful resource and will for that, wasn't there?
They doubtless saw a multi million fraud being perpetrated on their shiny new system, and had to deal with these greedy SPM's. Corporate culture and senior management style would have been huge factors in protecting that system when questions were raised, that isn't a prosecution decision it's corporate culture, driven by senior management enforcers. But it's impossible to prosecute some anonymous senior managers who push hard for these things, their hands are clean, it wasn't their decision. It's an endless merry go round of blame and innocence.I'd bet you a pound to a pinch of shoite that fewer than say, 555 people within the PO made those decisions that resulted in the fallacious Horizon fraud convictions
But there was plentiful resource and will for that, wasn't there?
That's why changing corporate greed, a profit before people culture, is the way forward. Ripping off someone's gong makes no difference.
It's in human nature to deny and defend whether your a plumber that can't be arsed to go back to a shabby job, or a big company.
Sponsored Links
