Towerpower99
Well-known member
She had to read her heart felt apology off a card …..
Sorry? It's not in her dictionary.She had to read her heart felt apology off a card …..
Not that pitiful unfortunately, paid huge amounts to do apparently fuck all.I wager those are the longest two days of her pitiful life..
Exposed multiple times for what she is and what she did / didn't do!
The post office lawyer probably wrote it to admit nothing. Also she adopted the usual tactic of "I can't recall" when things were awkward for her, but had good memory when blaming others.She had to read her heart felt apology off a card …..
If you have not already seen it watch on YouTube the evidence to the enquiry of the Area Manager, Elaine Cottam, in relation to the Cleveleys sub-postmistress case. It is a truly staggering performance.Hearing some of these executives, I start to wonder why we are having a public enquiry and not a police investigation. Fraud, perjury, blackmail, withholding evidence, how much more evidence is needed?
As I understand it, it's the PO Board that is vicariously liable. The questioning so far has been building a case to put the Board in precisely that position. Any prosecutions will follow from that.Hearing some of these executives, I start to wonder why we are having a public enquiry and not a police investigation. Fraud, perjury, blackmail, withholding evidence, how much more evidence is needed?
I wouldn't have had her as a floor cleaner, let alone Area Manager.If you have not already seen it watch on YouTube the evidence to the enquiry of the Area Manager, Elaine Cottam, in relation to the Cleveleys sub-postmistress case. It is a truly staggering performance.
My thinking was more morality based than monetary.Not that pitiful unfortunately, paid huge amounts to do apparently fuck all.
The CPS will not prosecute until the public inquiry has reported formally with all loose ends tied up. That could be at least another two years yet. However, the police are already investigating but will not question anybody until after they have given evidence.Vennells gives evidence in May. One hopes that the police will start questioning and charging some people soon. The public enquiry seems like it has accumulated plenty of evidence for them. Mind you, the Met haven't the best track record themselves!
The other stand out is Jarnail Singh who was Head of Criminal Law at POL whilst claiming not to be a specialist in that area of the lawIf you have not already seen it watch on YouTube the evidence to the enquiry of the Area Manager, Elaine Cottam, in relation to the Cleveleys sub-postmistress case. It is a truly staggering performance.
Jarnail Singh due on Friday… Cartwright King the other days…The other stand out is Jarnail Singh who was Head of Criminal Law at POL whilst claiming to be a specialist in that area of the law
He also denied drafting certain emails despite them containing his trademark spelling and punctuation errors
He’s been on already so must be up for other aspectsJarnail Singh due on Friday… Cartwright King the other days…
Saw that, what a piece of work. Any normal functioning company manager wouldn't have had her running a stationary room, she was responsible for over a 100 branches, how was that possible she could barely string two coherent words together.If you have not already seen it watch on YouTube the evidence to the enquiry of the Area Manager, Elaine Cottam, in relation to the Cleveleys sub-postmistress case. It is a truly staggering performance.
See mine at #159.When the prosecutions commence, they will have to start with those middle managers like Jarnail Singh and then gradually work their way up the tree.
It might look a bit harsh at the start, with the underlings being prosecuted first, but all the evidence they offer in their defences (“only following orders”) will be gold in the consequent prosecutions of the top brass, who will undoubtedly try deflection to blame their employees for exceeding their authority.
The top brass rarely sign any paperwork for initiating court cases, so we need their employees on oath first for that evidence.
Following orders means that orders have been given from higher up. If people can prove that, their goose is cooked, regardless of their failure to recall anything.When the prosecutions commence, they will have to start with those middle managers like Jarnail Singh and then gradually work their way up the tree.
It might look a bit harsh at the start, with the underlings being prosecuted first, but all the evidence they offer in their defences (“only following orders”) will be gold in the consequent prosecutions of the top brass, who will undoubtedly try deflection to blame their employees for exceeding their authority.
The top brass rarely sign any paperwork for initiating court cases, so we need their employees on oath first for that evidence.
They’ll probably now not be charged, with their lawyers claiming they won’t get a fair trial.Hearing some of these executives, I start to wonder why we are having a public enquiry and not a police investigation. Fraud, perjury, blackmail, withholding evidence, how much more evidence is needed?
Oh yes they will. Which is why the chairman of the public inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, has been meticulous in formally warning witnesses about their rights against self-incrimination in the evidence they are about to provide.They’ll probably now not be charged, with their lawyers claiming they won’t get a fair trial.
Cartwright King is the lawyers’ company that Singh instructed to carry out all the admin to send the SPMs to trial. Their evidence versus Singh’s should be interesting. It’s a shame that Singh is not up first.Jarnail Singh due on Friday… Cartwright King the other days…
I think the post office should be applauded and their management recruitment process handed over to medical science.Was watching the head of legal in my lunchtime, it's strangely addictive watching these KCs at work, slowly and quietly building the evidence despite the obvious lack of cooperation.
On a plus, it is great to see all these poeple with impaired memories managing to achieve such highly paid jobs.
Astonishing.....didn't know how to save or print a document despite the evidence showing he printed it...Karnal Singh is on now…. Wow you got to watch this guy…. Great viewing…
He is a rabbit in the headlights…Astonishing.....didn't know how to save or print a document despite the evidence showing he printed it...
I wouldn't be surprised if his own court case awaitsHe is a rabbit in the headlights…
It’s astounding…..Singh is literally unbelievable. He waffles along creating his own bear traps. At one point concerning the Misra trial (pregnant woman sent to jail) he says it was his first trial so he was so focused on it and had to deal with all the documents for the trial “in a careful and methodical way”.
So Jason Beer asks “So you would have read this email, which you saved and printed three days before the Misra trial commenced, carefully and methodically as it detailed the Horizon bugs which were at the core of the Misra trial ? (my paraphrasing). Singh: “Errrr, no. I have no recall of this email or it’s attached documents.”
“So who printed it?” “My secretary”. “So you told her to print this email and docs? Why?” “Errrr... “
Being charitable, it's possible that time is catching up with her, perhaps a stroke, early dementia, who knows, maybe she was a bit more on the ball 15 years ago.Saw that, what a piece of work. Any normal functioning company manager wouldn't have had her running a stationary room, she was responsible for over a 100 branches, how was that possible she could barely string two coherent words together.
They didn't think they'd get caught.The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Multiple people having multiple opportunities to stop wrongful convictions, and every one of them didn't. Not only that, but nobody seemed to read any emails, ever, at the top of the Post Office. How dumb do they think we are?
I've no idea how they could all sleep at night with the knowledge that their silence meant people were being sent to prison for something they didn't do. It's incomprehensible.
I just can’t fathom that not one single person involved in all this apparently refused to go along with the lies and subterfuge or spoke out publicly about what was going on. It’s like they were all collectively brainwashed. Where were the whistleblowers, how were they silenced. Like you said it’s incomprehensible.The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Multiple people having multiple opportunities to stop wrongful convictions, and every one of them didn't. Not only that, but nobody seemed to read any emails, ever, at the top of the Post Office. How dumb do they think we are?
I've no idea how they could all sleep at night with the knowledge that their silence meant people were being sent to prison for something they didn't do. It's incomprehensible.
In my experience almost all large companies are run in a similar manner, and have equal levels of incompetence. I had one client a government owned but independently operated company that refused to pay about half our fees despite the fees being signed off by an agreed third party. We were threatened with legal action, and that they would be able to influence court proceedings and judges. Eventually had to settle for about 25%. The interesting thing was after the settlement meeting, one of the participants called me to ask if we would do a project to review their internal ethics and anti corruption practices. The guy that called me had direct reporting to ministers, had no recognition of what had passed over the previous year.The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Multiple people having multiple opportunities to stop wrongful convictions, and every one of them didn't. Not only that, but nobody seemed to read any emails, ever, at the top of the Post Office. How dumb do they think we are?
I've no idea how they could all sleep at night with the knowledge that their silence meant people were being sent to prison for something they didn't do. It's incomprehensible.
Been watching/listening this morning, apparently Singh didn't know in 2006ish how to save a file in his computer. How does someone that dimwitted qualify as a solicitor? I know he's lying about that but how does he think it's believable?It would seem to me to be a just scenario where Singh is put on trial and a jury is asked to consider the evidence he has presented today
TBF, solicitors, in my experience, tended to be somewhat behind the curve on IT, and I imagine that the PO was behind the curve even for solicitors.Been watching/listening this morning, apparently Singh didn't know in 2006ish how to save a file in his computer. How does someone that dimwitted qualify as a solicitor? I know he's lying about that but how does he think it's believable?
It was 2010. Also said he didn't know how to print eitherBeen watching/listening this morning, apparently Singh didn't know in 2006ish how to save a file in his computer. How does someone that dimwitted qualify as a solicitor? I know he's lying about that but how does he think it's believable?
Wasn’t it 2010?TBF, solicitors, in my experience, tended to be somewhat behind the curve on IT, and I imagine that the PO was behind the curve even for solicitors.
2006 though, how does he remember to breathe in and out?
Possibly, the post I was responding to said 2006.Wasn’t it 2010?
The guy appears to be a bare faced liarPossibly, the post I was responding to said 2006.
If 2010, that's just worse (if that's even possible).
Yep, that's what I think, however I am interested in exploring how it could be "possible" that anything he says is true.The guy appears to be a bare faced liar
When he was giving evidence last November, he was claiming that he hadn’t dictated emails even though they contained his trademark grammatical errors
Singh's email started with 'having read the papers....' ... Sir Wyn picked him up on that too.This is in the Law Gazette on that
2.35pm: A major revelation and one of Singh's most uncomfortable moments so far. The inquiry sees an email chain where Post Office leaders are discussing whether to disclose investigators' reports as part of the mediation process in 2014.
Singh says that in relation to the former sub-postmistress Jo Hamilton (pictured below), he had no doubt that disclosure would have been an 'extremely dangerous approach'. Hamilton was fighting to clear her name and clearly, suggests Beer, would have benefitted from knowing there were deficiencies in the case against her.
The solicitor tells the inquiry he had not even read the Hamilton file when he wrote this email. This prompts Beer and chair Sir Wyn Williams to ask incredulously how he could possibly have quoted directly from it if he had not read.
Singh takes long pauses as he tries to explain what was happening. He says this email was just him 'weighing' up the arguments over disclosure of investigators' reports.
Beer says this is proof of a cover-up, which Singh denies.
Even worse, I have to imagine him with a quill scribbling incoherent messages. The horizon system must have seemed like complete hocus pocus to himIt was 2010. Also said he didn't know how to print either