|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Fri 24 May 11:50
In my break I watched some of the questioning today and my question is whether this enquiry will lead to potential litigation through the courts for private or public prosecution of those in charge of the post office.
I genuinely cannot believe the responses coming from Vennells that she was not aware and proceeded to prosecutions with the information that was available to her when the post masters were prosecuted.
Really shocking corporate management that destroyed lives and led to early deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 24 May 12:01
It`s not just her though. There is a whole gallery of them that should be utterly ashamed of what they have done. It actually beggars belief and it throws into doubt our entire justice system.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Fri 24 May 12:15
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 24 May 12:01
It`s not just her though. There is a whole gallery of them that should be utterly ashamed of what they have done. It actually beggars belief and it throws into doubt our entire justice system.
I know nothing of what happened previously and watched what has been said and within 10 minutes I believe that she and others should go to jail. The testimony is damning by their actions and reactions to the sub post masters. I thought that these people had a duty of care to employees. I really hope that this enquiry opens a public prosecution and sends these people to jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 24 May 13:21
Oh you should have heard some of the earlier testimony a few weeks back. These cretins were hiding evidence and tipping off others so that the doubts over the computer system wouldn`t come to light.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 24 May 13:24
I think prosecustions are actually likely.
Hopefully the water companies will follow suit if evidence exists.
That being said, we need to find an easier and cheaper way to bring prosecutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 24 May 13:28
Cheap and easy prosecutions is what led to this in the first place.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Fri 24 May 13:59
Of all the damning stuff to come come out this week, this, from The Guardian, really sums up her attitude.
In relation to the PO`s legal expert, Susan Crighton:
Vennells wrote in a memo, seen by the inquiry, that she had “put her integrity as a lawyer above the interests of the business”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 24 May 15:48
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 24 May 13:28
Cheap and easy prosecutions is what led to this in the first place.
They weren`t cheap, just folk hiding evidence and spending 300k to chase down 25k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 24 May 17:07
So each of the 900 prosecutions cost 300k?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 24 May 17:16
No prosecutions for Grenfell and probably none from this, rich people don`t go to jail.
Where`s Michelle Mone by the way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 24 May 17:52
"No prosecutions for Grenfell and probably none from this, rich people don`t go to jail."
Wasn`t Geoffrey Archer quite well off before he did porridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 24 May 17:57
I`ve got no idea. But corporate lawyers are far from cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 24 May 18:19
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 24 May 17:52
"No prosecutions for Grenfell and probably none from this, rich people don`t go to jail."
Wasn`t Geoffrey Archer quite well off before he did porridge.
That was over 20yrs ago, lot changed since then, still got a seat in the House of Lords though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 25 May 14:16
Quote:
LochgellyAlbert, Fri 24 May 18:19
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 24 May 17:52
"No prosecutions for Grenfell and probably none from this, rich people don`t go to jail."
Wasn`t Geoffrey Archer quite well off before he did porridge.
That was over 20yrs ago, lot changed since then, still got a seat in the House of Lords though!
Why shouldn`t he. He served his time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 27 May 12:40
There’s no way he should have been allowed near the Lords - having served his sentence does not alter the fact he is a convicted liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Tue 28 May 10:43
Quote:
veteraneastender, Mon 27 May 12:40
There’s no way he should have been allowed near the Lords - having served his sentence does not alter the fact he is a convicted liar.
I can`t agree with that. Conviction spent, get on with life. The liar part is laughable. Just empty every parliament in the world right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 28 May 11:55
I`m with Veteran on this one.
His own party kicked him out. It was just a gap in the rules that meant he didn`t lose his peerage as well.
I cant see any argument that someone lies in court and gets jailed for 4 years should keep a seat in the house of lords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Tue 28 May 14:08
He perjured himself in Court, nothing to do with Parliament.
MPs have legal privilege to be “economical with the truth” in the Commons - but not in Court.
His admittance to the Lords is everything that is wrong with the establishment and Parliamentary procedures.
Mind you, I doubt he’ll need to claim his £300 daily attendance nice little earner ?
Post Edited (Wed 29 May 16:55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Tue 28 May 14:44
Quote:
veteraneastender, Tue 28 May 14:08
He perjured himself in Court, nothing to do with Parliament.
MPs have legal privilege to be “economical with the truth” I’m the Commons - but not in Court.
His admittance to the Lords is everything that is wrong with the establishment and Parliamentary procedures.
Mind you, I doubt he’ll need to claim his £300 daily attendance nice little earner ?
OK I changed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Mon 3 Jun 19:29
The question I have is who in government knew and are they now being pritected
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 3 Jun 20:20
Quote:
thebear, Mon 3 Jun 19:29
The question I have is who in government knew and are they now being pritected
A Tory MP took up the issue on behalf of a constituent and then became involved more generally supporting cases.
The government, indeed all MPs, were aware of the Post Office action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 4 Jun 09:42
Topic Originator: veteraneastender like
Date: Tue 28 May 14:08
He perjured himself in Court, nothing to do with Parliament.
MPs have legal privilege to be “economical with the truth” in the Commons - but not in Court.
>His admittance to the Lords is everything that is wrong with the establishment and Parliamentary procedures.<
Mind you, I doubt he’ll need to claim his £300 daily attendance nice little earner ?
Having a House of Lords is what is wrong ( one of many things of course ) and how easily someone can be parachuted in/ be bribed as an MP with a future cloak of ermine. The whole thing is rotten to the core.
|
|
|
|
|
|
