Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hundreds of Post Office workers ‘vindicated’ by High Court ruling over faulty Post Office IT system

I wonder how the 'i don't recall' defense works legally? They obviously knew stuff but it's all 'i don't recall' and 'that wasn't my understanding'. So incompetence rather than malice. Would this remove legal culpability or just lower the penalty? Is it the limited liability corporation or the individuals at risk of legal jeopardy? Any Urban legal types know?
BTW I loved that the enquiry put a large colourful box of tissues in front of her. Top trolling.
 
There was a moment earlier I saw where some of the postmasters in the gallery started shouting a bit at one of her 'answers', couldn't hear what they were saying but it was probably along the lines of the above. The judge in charge had to tell them to behave themselves. It must be damn hard.
It was after another of her lies. She said she didn't take the advice of one person to not look into cases going back years because it would be front page headlines. She said she would never make a decision based on the advice of one just person. Et voilà! another email proving she's lying and that's exactly what she did.
I'm surprised the gallery hasn't erupted long before now. That lying fuck destroyed people's lives, and now she's trying to distance herself from it with blatant lies.
 
I just googled him. Quite a CV. He's pretty much done it all.

He has provided this end-to-end service in a number of the most prominent cases of the last two decades. His caseload has included: the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, the Hutton Inquiry, the Shipman Inquiry, the ‘Phone Hacking’ Claims, the Baha Mousa Inquiry, the Al-Sweady Inquiry, the Hillsborough Inquests, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, Sir Cliff Richard’s claim for misuse of private information, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Fishmongers Hall Inquests, the Facial Recognition judicial review, the Harry Dunn judicial review, the Shoreham Airshow Inquests, the Plymouth Shootings Inquests, and the EncroChat Claims.

He is presently instructed in:

  • The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, as Leading Counsel to the Inquiry
  • The Covid 19 Inquiry, as Leading Counsel for NHS England
  • The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, as Leading Counsel for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
  • The Thirlwall Inquiry, as Leading Counsel for NHS England
  • The Malkinson Inquiry, as Leading Counsel for Greater Manchester Police
  • The Dawn Sturgess Inquiry, as Leading Counsel for Counter Terrorism Policing South East
  • The Jalal Uddin Inquiry, as Leading Counsel to the Inquiry
  • The Undercover Policing Inquiry, as Leading Counsel for a group of undercover police officers
 
Jesus Christ... did she take interview tips from the sweaty nonce?
This is like a really bad train wreck. She's trying to cover for things she has no idea are coming down the line. It's like she's playing blindfolded.
There are no correct answers to the questions she's being asked (that don't involve self-incrimination) but she's giving the worst possible answers.
 
Jesus Christ... did she take interview tips from the sweaty nonce?
This is like a really bad train wreck. She's trying to cover for things she has no idea are coming down the line. It's like she's playing blindfolded.
There are no correct answers to the questions she's being asked (that don't involve self-incrimination) but she's giving the worst possible answers.

I do wonder who has prepared her for this. Who her own advisors are. She must have been prepping for months.
 
When she's telling lies, there seem to be 2 kind of tells. If it's something that would indicate a moral failing and active deception, she gives an immediate one word response. If it's a procedural lie, about whether she knew something at some point or spoke to someone, she does the long pauses and hand gestures.
 
When she's telling lies, there seem to be 2 kind of tells. If it's something that would indicate a moral failing and active deception, she gives an immediate one word response. If it's a procedural lie, about whether she knew something at some point or spoke to someone, she does the long pauses and hand gestures.
And reaches for the glass of water, immediately after the biggies.
 
I do wonder who has prepared her for this. Who her own advisors are. She must have been prepping for months.
I've wondered about that. I presume the Post Office itself are not officially supporting her, thought there must have been some help to get at documents and the rest. She'll also have been in touch with other witnesses, though they are stabbing each other in the back, So, is she on her own with this - well, just using her own millions to get a PR and legal case together? Not sure how such things work for ex bosses of organisations.
 
You would assume she could afford a fairly high calibre law firm herself and they'd rehearse what Beer's gonna throw at her for days
 
I've only heard bits of it today, but the stuff about not telling the board about bugs and unsafe convictions looked very significant. Particularly that the lawyer - Susan - was made to sit outside.
 
I've only heard bits of it today, but the stuff about not telling the board about bugs and unsafe convictions looked very significant. Particularly that the lawyer - Susan - was made to sit outside.

Well she threw the Chair under the bus for that decision, rightly I suppose
 
You would assume she could afford a fairly high calibre law firm herself and they'd rehearse what Beer's gonna throw at her for days
Yes, though that would be an immense effort. They'd probably have to read much of what Beer had to plough through (though I suppose she could direct them to the most risky documents - given that she's both guilty and had seen plenty of these docs).
 
Well she threw the Chair under the bus for that decision, rightly I suppose
- Well, I wasn't really presenting that doc...
So why didn't you tell them about the bugs and unsafe convictions?
- It wasn't in the doc I was presenting
 
- Well, I wasn't really presenting that doc...
So why didn't you tell them about the bugs and unsafe convictions?
- It wasn't in the doc I was presenting

Yeh that was nuts. I get that it wasn't a formal presentation of the document but she could have said 'oh by the way, there's something else you should know'
 
Does anyone have any confidence that she will do time for any of this? Much as I'm enjoying seeing her squirm I would much rather see her banged up.

I looked into this. She lied to the select committee under oath which in itself is a crime.

She should not be jailed fot the scandal.

She should, however, be jailed for perjury, false accounting and fraud. She knew that the system was flawed, but she persisrently lied and incentivised her staff to lie. And she knew that the flawed system was being used to conceal tfe fact that her company was embezzling millions of pounds out of sub-postmasters.

She — and all those involved should be subject to long jail sentences — but only after they have been financially ruined by paying refunds, interest, and compensation out of their own pockets. It is long past the time whenwe should have sent out the message that bullying is not acceptable… but it is not too late.
 
Well she threw the Chair under the bus for that decision, rightly I suppose
Again, you just wish he's push a bit harder on some of these points. 'Say what? The Chair thought the lead solicitor wasn't reliable or for some reason had to be excluded from a meeting, to the point you had to give her report? You are the boss - what did the chair say to you, what were the discussions afterwards? Surely Susan went ballistic afterwards? Didn't she speak to you? Are you saying you just wandered off after this astonishing meeting and just went home for your tea?'
 
I looked into this. She lied to the select committee under oath which in itself is a crime.


This: And she knew that the flawed system was being used to conceal tfe fact that her company was embezzling millions of pounds out of sub-postmasters.

Is the only bit where they could get a decent nicking from, they earned money (bonuses) from this fraud.
 
Yesterday she was like a tiring juggler, trying to keep all the plates afloat as they crashed to the ground. A losing battle, but still a bit of verbal dexterity on display. Today is multiple skip fires. She's just tried to say that words on a page about avoiding compensation mean nothing like the shitting obvious things they do mean.
 
She's looking really distressed now, quite different from the crocodile tears yesterday. She's being confronted by abject lies.
 
I have no memory of putting the cat in the bin, but if a cat was at some point put in a bin then that would have happened based on expert advice which I would have trusted at the time and obviously as a lifelong cat-owner myself I have nothing but respect for hardworking cats and if any cats were upset then I would of course extend my apologies on behalf of Post Office Ltd, and whilst I definitely don't want to make it seem like it is the fault of that cat-hating maniac Susan, it was definitely probably the fault of that cat-hating maniac Susan <blubs>
 
I have no memory of putting the cat in the bin, but if a cat was at some point put in a bin then that would have happened based on expert advice which I would have trusted at the time and obviously as a lifelong cat-owner myself I have nothing but respect for hardworking cats and if any cats were upset then I would of course extend my apologies on behalf of Post Office Ltd, and whilst I definitely don't want to make it seem like it is the fault of that cat-hating maniac Susan, it was definitely probably the fault of that cat-hating maniac Susan <blubs>
As ridiculous as that sounded, that's exactly what she's doing!
 
Back
Top Bottom