| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night 08:32 - Feb 18 with 2749 views | bluelagos |
Answering the question on the Post Office scandal that saw many ordinary post office owners jailed after prosecutions for theft which was no more than an accounting software error.
Broken families, lost businesses, public shaming, prison and a number of suicides...yet the lack of accountability for those responsible for those prosecutions is breathtaking yet as ever, not surprising.
|  |
| |  |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 08:57 - Feb 18 with 2142 views | ITFC_Forever |
He's wasted in local politics.
Adding him to the national Labour team will make them all the stronger. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 08:57 - Feb 18 with 2134 views | chicoazul |
Shame he wasn’t in government when it happened isn’t it. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:06 - Feb 18 with 2090 views | Churchman |
I didn’t see question time but this is one of the biggest disgraces and miscarriages of justice of the century to date.
These poor people and their families deserve to be properly and quickly compensated. If it comes from the public purse, so be it. We can find billions for fraudulent business support schemes and garbage PPE when we need to, so the relatively tiny sum for these people is the least that can be done for them.
On the other side of it, the people responsible, from the CEOs to MDs to IT people should be held to account. By that I mean honours stripped away, their assets seized and a good long jail term.
There is no liability in this country for corporate mismanagement, incompetence and in some cases fraud, as there is in the US. I guess the little brown envelope, the potential seat on the Board for ex-MPs makes that unpalatable. Just a view.
That’s my rant for the day done. |  | | |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:07 - Feb 18 with 2072 views | NthQldITFC |
It feels to me like society generally, and government / big business most obviously brazenly, have really become more and more shameless over the last few decades.
I think the raw greed, corruption and dishonesty is the same as ever, but it's the willingness of these individuals to lie, cheat and manipulate in the knowledge that absolutely everybody can see exactly what they are doing, that leaves me speechless and very pessimistic about where we are heading. Even the Thatcher-era mob would have been too embarrassed to try to get away with some of this stuff. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:11 - Feb 18 with 2038 views | Vic |
He’s one politician that has blossomed since leaving Westminster.
The problem with a ‘Hillsborough Law’ is that you can’t force people to tell the truth. We have statements under oath etc now and still people lie through their back teeth if they think there’s a smile on of a chance it will help them. The problem we have is a basic selfishness that’s rooted in all of us to a greater of lesser degree. No amount of legislating will change that. Honesty, integrity and concern for others has to be a voluntary thing. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:20 - Feb 18 with 1996 views | bluelagos |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:11 - Feb 18 by Vic |
He’s one politician that has blossomed since leaving Westminster.
The problem with a ‘Hillsborough Law’ is that you can’t force people to tell the truth. We have statements under oath etc now and still people lie through their back teeth if they think there’s a smile on of a chance it will help them. The problem we have is a basic selfishness that’s rooted in all of us to a greater of lesser degree. No amount of legislating will change that. Honesty, integrity and concern for others has to be a voluntary thing. |
"The problem with a ‘Hillsborough Law’ is that you can’t force people to tell the truth. "
That's a pretty poor argument tbh
No one is suggesting a duty of candor would stop 100% of those who choose to lie and mislead public inquiries and/or inquests. But by making it a crime it will stop a large chunk of it if people knew they were subject to "perverting the course of justice" type prosecution/punishment if they went down that route.
As the law stands, the many police who lied at the public inquiries and inquests at Warrington and to the Taylor inquiry did so with impunity - their lies are not currently a crime.
Let me spell it out for you - our public servants (including the police but not solely the police) can attend a public inquiry into multiple deaths (Hillsborough / Grenfell / Manchester bombings etc.) and if they intentionally lie and mislead that inquiry there is no comeback.
You want that to continue? | |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:27 - Feb 18 with 1958 views | Vic |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:20 - Feb 18 by bluelagos |
"The problem with a ‘Hillsborough Law’ is that you can’t force people to tell the truth. "
That's a pretty poor argument tbh
No one is suggesting a duty of candor would stop 100% of those who choose to lie and mislead public inquiries and/or inquests. But by making it a crime it will stop a large chunk of it if people knew they were subject to "perverting the course of justice" type prosecution/punishment if they went down that route.
As the law stands, the many police who lied at the public inquiries and inquests at Warrington and to the Taylor inquiry did so with impunity - their lies are not currently a crime.
Let me spell it out for you - our public servants (including the police but not solely the police) can attend a public inquiry into multiple deaths (Hillsborough / Grenfell / Manchester bombings etc.) and if they intentionally lie and mislead that inquiry there is no comeback.
You want that to continue? |
Absolutely not. As you explain it something needs to be done to strengthen things. But sadly human nature is to try and get away with things if we can - whether it's low level lying or high level lying. But absolutely yes, let’s do all we can to try to get honesty to help others. | |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:30 - Feb 18 with 1951 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:06 - Feb 18 by Churchman |
I didn’t see question time but this is one of the biggest disgraces and miscarriages of justice of the century to date.
These poor people and their families deserve to be properly and quickly compensated. If it comes from the public purse, so be it. We can find billions for fraudulent business support schemes and garbage PPE when we need to, so the relatively tiny sum for these people is the least that can be done for them.
On the other side of it, the people responsible, from the CEOs to MDs to IT people should be held to account. By that I mean honours stripped away, their assets seized and a good long jail term.
There is no liability in this country for corporate mismanagement, incompetence and in some cases fraud, as there is in the US. I guess the little brown envelope, the potential seat on the Board for ex-MPs makes that unpalatable. Just a view.
That’s my rant for the day done. |
Full story here:
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justice-lost-in-the-post. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:55 - Feb 18 with 1871 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:20 - Feb 18 by bluelagos |
"The problem with a ‘Hillsborough Law’ is that you can’t force people to tell the truth. "
That's a pretty poor argument tbh
No one is suggesting a duty of candor would stop 100% of those who choose to lie and mislead public inquiries and/or inquests. But by making it a crime it will stop a large chunk of it if people knew they were subject to "perverting the course of justice" type prosecution/punishment if they went down that route.
As the law stands, the many police who lied at the public inquiries and inquests at Warrington and to the Taylor inquiry did so with impunity - their lies are not currently a crime.
Let me spell it out for you - our public servants (including the police but not solely the police) can attend a public inquiry into multiple deaths (Hillsborough / Grenfell / Manchester bombings etc.) and if they intentionally lie and mislead that inquiry there is no comeback.
You want that to continue? |
Going off on another tangent.... the legal technicality I've never understood with Hillsborough is how the evidence from the inquest which returned the unlawfully killed verdict can't then be used as fact in the subsequent trials of individuals?
If an inquest is for all intents and purposes a court of law proves / establishes the facts, then surely this evidence can be treated as the truth and used in any subsequent legal proceedings?
There's a number of individuals from the inquests who effectively admitted their part in it, but then when their criminal cases came to court, this evidence couldn't be used, they started with a clean slate and reverted back to the same old version of events that have long since been proven to be incorrect. | |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:11 - Feb 18 with 1809 views | loftboy |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:55 - Feb 18 by ITFC_Forever |
Going off on another tangent.... the legal technicality I've never understood with Hillsborough is how the evidence from the inquest which returned the unlawfully killed verdict can't then be used as fact in the subsequent trials of individuals?
If an inquest is for all intents and purposes a court of law proves / establishes the facts, then surely this evidence can be treated as the truth and used in any subsequent legal proceedings?
There's a number of individuals from the inquests who effectively admitted their part in it, but then when their criminal cases came to court, this evidence couldn't be used, they started with a clean slate and reverted back to the same old version of events that have long since been proven to be incorrect. |
Hopefully one day soon Andy Burnham will be given the leadership of the Labour Party, reckon we could get a prime minister who would actually look after us mere mortals. |  | | |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:21 - Feb 18 with 1783 views | bluelagos |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:55 - Feb 18 by ITFC_Forever |
Going off on another tangent.... the legal technicality I've never understood with Hillsborough is how the evidence from the inquest which returned the unlawfully killed verdict can't then be used as fact in the subsequent trials of individuals?
If an inquest is for all intents and purposes a court of law proves / establishes the facts, then surely this evidence can be treated as the truth and used in any subsequent legal proceedings?
There's a number of individuals from the inquests who effectively admitted their part in it, but then when their criminal cases came to court, this evidence couldn't be used, they started with a clean slate and reverted back to the same old version of events that have long since been proven to be incorrect. |
What evidence could/could not be used in court (or indeed in the inquests) was down to the judge/coroner and was very much contested.
So for example, in the early 90s the SYP accepted their role in the deaths when agreeing compensation payments to a number of families/survivors. It was open to the coroner at the inquests to accept that, he chose not to allow that to be heard as evidence. Instead he allowed them to persue their lies of instead blaming fans rather than accept their own failings. All whilst denying the fans the right to legal representation to rebut those false allegations. I was actually one of four fans to request legal representation (Interested party status) at the inquests but it was refused.
He also allowed countless discredited evidence to be presented to the jury, such as the lies from Scott who claimed LFC attacked his horse with cigarette butts. A file later went on him to the CPS after those lies were exposed - but in their wisdom they choose not to prosecute him.
The coroner knew Scott was under investigation and allowed his evidence to go uncontested. Most police witnesses evidence was contested and shown up for the lies they were, yet Scott's wasn't. Why? Because he was in a wheelchair and the family lawyers thought it unwise to "go for" him as it the jury would have sympathy for him.
Maybe one of the worse cases of bias was how Duckenfield was treated by the judge at his criminal trial. He was allowed to sit with his lawyers rather than in the dock and was even called "a poor chap" by the judge. Struggling to think of any other case where a judge openly empathised with someone charged with killing people...
David Conn did an excellent bit on the failings at the criminal trials. Many campaigners I know take the view that the establishment closed ranks after the inquests. They expected the inquest findings to be less critical of the Police / ambulance services and were taken back by the clear findings of the jury that those killed were done so unlawfully and due to the failings of the police. | |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:38 - Feb 18 with 1712 views | Tonytown |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 08:57 - Feb 18 by chicoazul |
Shame he wasn’t in government when it happened isn’t it. |
Are you Glasgow Blue in disguise? | | | |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:41 - Feb 18 with 1700 views | Churchman |
Thank you for posting this. I recommend people read it. The scale and implications of this scandal go way beyond the ruining of lives and in some cases death of innocent people.
The first thing that’s required is proper accountability. There are people accountable for this that should be facing trial. They won’t. At a lower level, the instance where half the witnesses lied to the Committee, for example, they too should be facing trial. Not going to happen. Telling lies to a Select Committee, or similar body, should be made illegal, just as it is in a court of law.
Anyone still in senior positions at the Post Office who was involved at the time should be investigated. The IT company that took on the Horizon system then proceeded to basically do a snow job on it should be held to account. They won’t be because they are huge and are heavily involved in government contracts. Funny that.
Ministers who buried their heads in the sand like Cable and Cameron should be held to account. No chance.
All the above is just thoughts. How do you get real change? At the moment there’s no mechanism for it or will for change come to that. Until there is, disgraces like this will continue to happen. | | | |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:04 - Feb 18 with 1635 views | blueasfook |
it's a terrible scandal. There should be some prosecutions of the people who are really responsible.
That should include the clowns at Fujitsu who delivered an inadequate IT system and those at the post office who brought about the prosecutions.
It seems they had unerring faith in this system. The sheer level of fraud it was reporting should have alerted them that something could be wrong with the system rather than actual mass scale fraud going on. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:04 - Feb 18 with 1628 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:21 - Feb 18 by bluelagos |
What evidence could/could not be used in court (or indeed in the inquests) was down to the judge/coroner and was very much contested.
So for example, in the early 90s the SYP accepted their role in the deaths when agreeing compensation payments to a number of families/survivors. It was open to the coroner at the inquests to accept that, he chose not to allow that to be heard as evidence. Instead he allowed them to persue their lies of instead blaming fans rather than accept their own failings. All whilst denying the fans the right to legal representation to rebut those false allegations. I was actually one of four fans to request legal representation (Interested party status) at the inquests but it was refused.
He also allowed countless discredited evidence to be presented to the jury, such as the lies from Scott who claimed LFC attacked his horse with cigarette butts. A file later went on him to the CPS after those lies were exposed - but in their wisdom they choose not to prosecute him.
The coroner knew Scott was under investigation and allowed his evidence to go uncontested. Most police witnesses evidence was contested and shown up for the lies they were, yet Scott's wasn't. Why? Because he was in a wheelchair and the family lawyers thought it unwise to "go for" him as it the jury would have sympathy for him.
Maybe one of the worse cases of bias was how Duckenfield was treated by the judge at his criminal trial. He was allowed to sit with his lawyers rather than in the dock and was even called "a poor chap" by the judge. Struggling to think of any other case where a judge openly empathised with someone charged with killing people...
David Conn did an excellent bit on the failings at the criminal trials. Many campaigners I know take the view that the establishment closed ranks after the inquests. They expected the inquest findings to be less critical of the Police / ambulance services and were taken back by the clear findings of the jury that those killed were done so unlawfully and due to the failings of the police. |
Thanks BL....
Then surely the judge / coroner shouldn't be allowed to make that decision? It should be set in stone, so there can be no opportunity for them to deselect evidence they don't like the look of? | |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:05 - Feb 18 with 1623 views | WeWereZombies |
Thanks for that, a long and troubling read but, in my opinion, a necessary one. Some great historical information in there about Charles the First kicking things off with regards to state monopoly of mail (no doubt God told him to) and then Oliver Cromwell turning it into the Post Office. Revealing that the Security and Investigations Service (which surely must be known to the sub-postmasters as the SS) puts loyalty to the Crown above justice. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:08 - Feb 18 with 1603 views | Deano69 |
amazing isnt it.
Wouldn't you have thought after the 3rd or 4th similar incident 'thats odd'? Maybe with slow progress and typical big company mentality it would have got to 20 or 30. But 555 ffs???
People took their own lives, did time and lost everything over this. utterly appalling |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:10 - Feb 18 with 1591 views | WeWereZombies |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 09:55 - Feb 18 by ITFC_Forever |
Going off on another tangent.... the legal technicality I've never understood with Hillsborough is how the evidence from the inquest which returned the unlawfully killed verdict can't then be used as fact in the subsequent trials of individuals?
If an inquest is for all intents and purposes a court of law proves / establishes the facts, then surely this evidence can be treated as the truth and used in any subsequent legal proceedings?
There's a number of individuals from the inquests who effectively admitted their part in it, but then when their criminal cases came to court, this evidence couldn't be used, they started with a clean slate and reverted back to the same old version of events that have long since been proven to be incorrect. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#England_and_Wales | |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:10 - Feb 18 with 1591 views | Darth_Koont |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:11 - Feb 18 by loftboy |
Hopefully one day soon Andy Burnham will be given the leadership of the Labour Party, reckon we could get a prime minister who would actually look after us mere mortals. |
Tend to agree. He’s light years from Starmer’s (middle) manager for managed decline. You get the feeling Burnham would actually push a vision and do something.
Important to remember that he was considered too far to the left for the powers that be at the top of the party back in 2015.
Although I suspect “too far to the left” is him wanting to be a representative politician and not being interested in trading power and influence for money and a career. Which threatens too many people on the Labour Right. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:15 - Feb 18 with 1576 views | Bobbychase |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 10:21 - Feb 18 by bluelagos |
What evidence could/could not be used in court (or indeed in the inquests) was down to the judge/coroner and was very much contested.
So for example, in the early 90s the SYP accepted their role in the deaths when agreeing compensation payments to a number of families/survivors. It was open to the coroner at the inquests to accept that, he chose not to allow that to be heard as evidence. Instead he allowed them to persue their lies of instead blaming fans rather than accept their own failings. All whilst denying the fans the right to legal representation to rebut those false allegations. I was actually one of four fans to request legal representation (Interested party status) at the inquests but it was refused.
He also allowed countless discredited evidence to be presented to the jury, such as the lies from Scott who claimed LFC attacked his horse with cigarette butts. A file later went on him to the CPS after those lies were exposed - but in their wisdom they choose not to prosecute him.
The coroner knew Scott was under investigation and allowed his evidence to go uncontested. Most police witnesses evidence was contested and shown up for the lies they were, yet Scott's wasn't. Why? Because he was in a wheelchair and the family lawyers thought it unwise to "go for" him as it the jury would have sympathy for him.
Maybe one of the worse cases of bias was how Duckenfield was treated by the judge at his criminal trial. He was allowed to sit with his lawyers rather than in the dock and was even called "a poor chap" by the judge. Struggling to think of any other case where a judge openly empathised with someone charged with killing people...
David Conn did an excellent bit on the failings at the criminal trials. Many campaigners I know take the view that the establishment closed ranks after the inquests. They expected the inquest findings to be less critical of the Police / ambulance services and were taken back by the clear findings of the jury that those killed were done so unlawfully and due to the failings of the police. |
Every so often I think about Duckenfield, who made a decision that led to 96 deaths, lied about that decision to cover his own back, was found to have lied and apologised for lying. How is he not in prison? I know there have been various procedures and trials etc but when you strip it down to the bare facts the buck stops with him. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 14:21 - Feb 18 with 1279 views | ronnyd |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 11:08 - Feb 18 by Deano69 |
amazing isnt it.
Wouldn't you have thought after the 3rd or 4th similar incident 'thats odd'? Maybe with slow progress and typical big company mentality it would have got to 20 or 30. But 555 ffs???
People took their own lives, did time and lost everything over this. utterly appalling |
Thinking along the same lines Deano. If over five hundred people of previous good character start committing fraud at the same time that a new computer system goes on line, surely managers at the Post Office should have questioned these anomalies. | | | |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 14:57 - Feb 18 with 1204 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 14:21 - Feb 18 by ronnyd |
Thinking along the same lines Deano. If over five hundred people of previous good character start committing fraud at the same time that a new computer system goes on line, surely managers at the Post Office should have questioned these anomalies. |
Utterly disgraceful. And a fair list of names that Private Eye article identifies all of whom should have been able to raise questions. |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 18:51 - Feb 18 with 1063 views | jas0999 |
Burnham is fantastic. Really understands people and what’s important. A good guy. | | | |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 19:32 - Feb 18 with 1006 views | Ryorry |
| Andy Burnham nails it on question time last night on 18:51 - Feb 18 by jas0999 |
Burnham is fantastic. Really understands people and what’s important. A good guy. |
Simultaneously down to earth & showing statesmanlike qualities - a rare combination. He was brilliant on QT last night. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
