Mr Bates and the post office

[Brigadier]

senior management enforcers.

There you go then



A very basic starter for ten: many of the subPMs were told, upon their disputing the shortfalls - "you're the only one".

Who told them that? Shouldn't be hard to find out.

Then, question them: "When you told X that no-one else had that issue, did you believe or know that to be untrue?"

Then, find out who instructed them to lie (to the subPM).

And watch the dominoes fall. Up to and including the CEO, if necessary.



Everyone has things that they don't spot, or deal with correctly, at work. It's human nature.
But we're not talking about some auditor within the PO missing that a subPM has been helping themselves to the pick n' mix.
A CEO cannot reasonably be held accountable for that.

But,

This is hundreds of significant "fraud" cases, amounting to millions of pounds.
At this scale, the CEO can't plead that they were unaware, surely?
Which leaves misled, incompetent, or complicit.

IMHO.

 

[ellal]

That's why changing corporate greed, a profit before people culture, is the way forward.

Any idea how to go about that?

Given that so called democracies (with the US/UK at the forefront) are actually subject to the corporate governance model!

 

[Doug99]

You'd think there was a general election pending, the way Sunak and Starmer are bending over backwards to quickly resolve the PO scandal. Its only been going on for 20+ years!!
The Lib-Dems could take a hit as their leader Davey is ducking and diving criticism of his lack of action during his time as PO minister.

 

[blup]

There you go then



A very basic starter for ten: many of the subPMs were told, upon their disputing the shortfalls - "you're the only one".

Who told them that? Shouldn't be hard to find out.

Then, question them: "When you told X that no-one else had that issue, did you believe or know that to be untrue?"

Then, find out who instructed them to lie (to the subPM).

And watch the dominoes fall. Up to and including the CEO, if necessary.



Everyone has things that they don't spot, or deal with correctly, at work. It's human nature.
But we're not talking about some auditor within the PO missing that a subPM has been helping themselves to the pick n' mix.
A CEO cannot reasonably be held accountable for that.

But,

This is hundreds of significant "fraud" cases, amounting to millions of pounds.
At this scale, the CEO can't plead that they were unaware, surely?
Which leaves misled, incompetent, or complicit.

IMHO.

In the context of a prosecution it might well have been inappropriate to disclose other "standalone" cases. Venal asked for a review when a journo raised concerns but then the internal investigation as dropped, which surprised the judge in the civil case, but again she would have been told there was potential civil action and that it wasn't appropriate.

There is a chasm between public opinion/expectation and the law. So hit them where it hurts the City, and the big investors. Sunnak wont want to do that so they'll rip off her gong, nothing like a witch ducking is there.

 

[blup]

You'd think there was a general election pending, the way Sunak and Starmer are bending over backwards to quickly resolve the PO scandal. Its only been going on for 20+ years!!
The Lib-Dems could take a hit as their leader Davey is ducking and diving criticism of his lack of action during his time as PO minister.

The right wingers have started as they mean to go on. Now Far rage is saying Stammer should have intervened as dpp.

 

[blup]

Any idea how to go about that?

Given that so called democracies (with the US/UK at the forefront) are actually subject to the corporate governance model!

Civil penalties against controlling shareholders as individuals as well as companies is a start.

 

[Brigadier]

So hit them where it hurts the City, and the big investors.

This too: it is not an "either / or", not in my opinion anyway, FWIW.

 

[securespark]

Whatserface has handed it back, with immediate effect.

 

[Roy Bloom]

How many more times?


"the PO"

- can't set policy
- can't make decisions
- "have concerns" (your words)
- can't take a dislike to anyone
- can't set out on a vendetta


People can and do all of the above.
People can, do and, in this case, appear to have done so.

So Coutts have nno liability for Farage's losses?
When people are falsely imprisoned, it isn't the 'people that made the decisions' that pay the damages. It's the organisation.
And loads of other similar issues.

 

[ellal]

Civil penalties against controlling shareholders as individuals as well as companies is a start.

A start indeed...

But I fear you misunderstood my post...

I said "Any idea how to go about that?"

Because we live under a corporate government system...

So could you tell if you believe any government would actually do anything that you suggest?

 

[Roy Bloom]

If Fujitsu are found to have secretly accessed a live system and made changes without authorisation they will be on the hook. For everything else they will likely have a defence of their contract warranty. Either way, the Japanese tech market was up around 3% yesterday, except Fujitsu which was down 0.5%. I suspect this story will cost them around $300M in market cap.

Post Office scandal: Ministers consider options to speed up justice

Plans to fast-track appeals of those affected by IT scandal to be announced "very shortly", minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know how accurate was the film, but the ability to access the live sysyem and makes changes was, apparently, demonstrated.

 

[motorbiking]

Yep I think the PO may have been a bit disingenuous with their answers (based on the film). This is the problem with LIPs, they don't know how to phrase their questions to get the right answer.

The question is not : - Is there remote access to the SPM terminals. - the answer could be no. But that does not mean someone else cannot change the data.


Other than the SPM, can any other person make changes to the data that would impact the cashing up process? Then you would dive further in to asking about super user privileges, check-in/check-out processes for Database admins, separation of duty, audit logs, security of audit logs etc. etc. It would be very easy to show that the PO could not guarantee - that no-one had changed the data.

But the issue is really whether they were acting under instruction From the PO.
- it will all be in their service delivery contract.

I like the fact that the govt. are considering a some sort of windfall on Fujitsu. First rule of litigation - find the money.

 

[SirGalahad]

Whatserface has handed it back, with immediate effect.

So it took a drama to get her to act - what was the Government doing..

What a sad sad state of affairs.

Remeber the computer is never wrong - people will be automatically penalised and too afraid to stand up.

 

[motorbiking]

Civil penalties against controlling shareholders as individuals as well as companies is a start.

investors would de-invest overnight. For me its sufficient to hold the leadership to account and of course prosecuted any criminal activity or take civil action for breach of contract.

 

[ellal]

For me its sufficient to hold the leadership to account and of course prosecuted any criminal activity or take civil action for breach of contract.

So given the amount of similar scandals, what is the percentage of cases where that has happened?

And how many meaningless 'inquiries' have there been (at great expense) where 'lessons will be learned' is the only outcome?

How many 'leaders' are actually ever held to account?

So how would you go about changing what actually happens in reality?