Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Bonefish Blues said:
George struggles with procedures himself, it seems
https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/23775552.t...
Interesting comments are interesting...
I was thinking ‘oh dear that’s not going to be good for their Google reviews’ and indeed it's already begun…https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/23775552.t...
Interesting comments are interesting...
vaud said:
From X/Twitter - straight to the point:
"Preliminary finding: if you are a subpostmaster it is not ideal for your representative body to be funded by your employer"
He seems to not even understand that he was supposed to be working to support his members."Preliminary finding: if you are a subpostmaster it is not ideal for your representative body to be funded by your employer"
As someone out above too, his repeated refrain of “if there was a systemic problem then we’d have been swamped” could have been called out in two ways.
First, no. The errors could have been rare, but still responsible for all the convictions and secondly, so what if they were rare. The critical fact is that they existed, so should have precluded every conviction.
Stan the Bat said:
@01:57 . . . oh he is wearing a bow-tieaaah . . . he is a Professor
Makes sense now
pork911 said:
While the horizon system would undoubtedly have made it just as potentially disastrous, if access to basic face-to-face banking facilities is to be maintained for rural britons there's not much choice other than to facilitate it via SPOs. Blib said:
His main allegiance was to 'The Brand'.
In fairness to him (and I know this is difficult) he didn’t say that. He claimed (and his actions do back it up) that his allegiance was to the majority of SPMs who weren’t suspended or prosecuted. He correctly identified that a widespread loss of faith in Horizon would be existential to the brand, and to the SPMs’ livelihoods.That’s not really the problem. NFSP wasn’t really a Union; it was a liaison body.
The problem is that he clearly assumed that anybody convicted by POL was guilty, and based this on his experience that there were indeed some SPMs who stole funds.
What he should have done was to support SPMs under suspicion, and help ensure actual investigations were carried out to establish if they were telling the truth. In that he clearly failed entirely.
And his gravest error? Failing to recognise that he could have taken a different path; that he didn’t have to condemn Horizon to be able to facilitate a proper course of justice for those SPMs who no doubt assumed the NFSP should be on their side.
And lastly? The capture of NFSP by POL clearly allowed POL to use threats of yet further cuts to ensure NFSP stayed on-side. His final error was to allow that to happen - never mind whether the members voted for it or not.
I do perversely have some sympathy for him. He was clearly so far out of his depth, and so consumed by “People’s Front of Judaea” political nonsense, that he simply couldn’t grasp what was happening. When he spoke repeatedly about nuance (whilst exhibiting no obvious grasp of same) it was clear he had absolutely no hint of irony.
People give evidence and say "I cannot recal, I can't remember, I'm sorry for what happened"
And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
kestral said:
People give evidence and say "I cannot recal, I can't remember, I'm sorry for what happened"
And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
Fascinating, what is clear is Mr Thomson acted as a paid POL shill rather than the representative of the SPMs he should have been, he was aligned with the POL strategy from day one acting against his memberships best interests contributing to the criminal abuse they suffered at the hands of the business. And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
Many of his wandering rants bore no relation to the questions posed by the council for the inquiry, they didn't need to corner him as he was busy digging a huge hole for himself and you never interrupt your witness whilst they are doing that.
You say he told the truth, what is clear is the bombastic fool wanted to lecture the inquiry on "his truth" and as far as he is concerned he did nothing wrong and would do it all again if given the chance, I'd say the inquiry got exactly what they wanted out of Mr Thompson.
Incredible to think the tax payer gave him £152,000 for his last year of service now that does boggle the mind.
Edited by Wills2 on Saturday 22 June 09:09
kestral said:
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
I don’t think it’s bravery, I think it’s arrogance that despite everything that’s happened he still doesn’t think he has done anything wrong and is daft enough to be led up the garden path, probably actually proud about what he thinks is being ‘no nonsense’ about itIs there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
Edited by The Wookie on Saturday 22 June 09:36
kestral said:
People give evidence and say "I cannot recal, I can't remember, I'm sorry for what happened"
And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
Can't fault the man for telling the truth as he saw it but not sure he should have been so bombastic and obnoxious about it.........IMO hewasn't representing SPM's best interests and clearly his focus was on the PO's best interests, what he saw as his Association's best interest and, again IMO, what is his own best interests (i.e ££££'s from the PO) and it seems to me he believed that the "few" SPM's that suffered were either guilty or, in the scale of things, acceptable casualties.And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
The fact he told the "truth" as he saw it and didn't do "I don't recall" will probably mean no legal sanctions but morally I think the bloke is a turd.
Edited by LimmerickLad on Saturday 22 June 09:38
Edited by LimmerickLad on Saturday 22 June 09:40
He was totally disinterested in those that were wrongly prosecuted/persecuted due to a Horizon transaction error because of the 'bullyuns' that weren't, ie statistically they were few.
True, they were very few in percentage terms, but as is always the case in cold statistical analysis with no empathy or humanity engaged; namely that if the 0.01% event happens to you, it's very real and present and there's no comfort in the fact that 99.99% of the population haven't. Fact remains, some real humans suffered.
The question I wanted to be asked of him was what his attitude would have been had it been a friend, a family member, or even himself that had had a Horizon generated shortfall...
So IMHO he wasn't being 'honest' as some claimed (maybe 'honest' to his own bigoted head), just ignorant, and equally as psychopathic as Vennels, Van den Bogard, Williams etc etc. So perfect Post Office material.
True, they were very few in percentage terms, but as is always the case in cold statistical analysis with no empathy or humanity engaged; namely that if the 0.01% event happens to you, it's very real and present and there's no comfort in the fact that 99.99% of the population haven't. Fact remains, some real humans suffered.
The question I wanted to be asked of him was what his attitude would have been had it been a friend, a family member, or even himself that had had a Horizon generated shortfall...
So IMHO he wasn't being 'honest' as some claimed (maybe 'honest' to his own bigoted head), just ignorant, and equally as psychopathic as Vennels, Van den Bogard, Williams etc etc. So perfect Post Office material.
TwinKam said:
He was totally disinterested in those that were wrongly prosecuted/persecuted due to a Horizon transaction error because of the 'bullyuns' that weren't, ie statistically they were few.
True, they were very few in percentage terms, but as is always the case in cold statistical analysis with no empathy or humanity engaged; namely that if the 0.01% event happens to you, it's very real and present and there's no comfort in the fact that 99.99% of the population haven't. Fact remains, some real humans suffered.
The question I wanted to be asked of him was what his attitude would have been had it been a friend, a family member, or even himself that had had a Horizon generated shortfall...
So IMHO he wasn't being 'honest' as some claimed (maybe 'honest' to his own bigoted head), just ignorant, and equally as psychopathic as Vennels, Van den Bogard, Williams etc etc. So perfect Post Office material.
One of the comments in the social media links from yesterday evening indicates that there was indeed a major shortfall written off for someone close to his organisation.True, they were very few in percentage terms, but as is always the case in cold statistical analysis with no empathy or humanity engaged; namely that if the 0.01% event happens to you, it's very real and present and there's no comfort in the fact that 99.99% of the population haven't. Fact remains, some real humans suffered.
The question I wanted to be asked of him was what his attitude would have been had it been a friend, a family member, or even himself that had had a Horizon generated shortfall...
So IMHO he wasn't being 'honest' as some claimed (maybe 'honest' to his own bigoted head), just ignorant, and equally as psychopathic as Vennels, Van den Bogard, Williams etc etc. So perfect Post Office material.
He was well and truly cornered at the start when they went through how his union is funded.
"Do your members know" was what he was asked. He gave a roundabout answer by stating the AGM votes, which I doubt included the funding details. Something I bet his members were interested to know.
"Do your members know" was what he was asked. He gave a roundabout answer by stating the AGM votes, which I doubt included the funding details. Something I bet his members were interested to know.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff