MacDonald Jardine Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 hours ago, Leith Green said: You do understand that the evidence, as presented by the PO, passed the test for going ahead with prosecution? Hence the PFS/CO went ahead, in the same way as their equivalents did down south? Subsequently, it has become apparent that the IT system was flawed so the key evidence was no longer trustworthy. You do know all this, yes? It's not as simple as that though. Yes the evidence did pass the initial test, but the same doubts were known to the Crown Office in 2012/13 as were known in England. They carried on regardless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 hours ago, Left Back said: That isn’t strictly true. There was no real test down south. The Post Office was investigator and prosecutor (and victim as well). Clearly a conflict of interest. Up here the COPFS was prosecutor and to me has not effectively scrutinised the evidence put before them and bashed on with prosecutions anyway, Even once concerns were raised by prosecutors up here they still carried on regardless, in a similar manner to how the PO did down south. There is a question to answer. Possibly a harder one than down south seeing as there was no obvious conflict of interest up here. 46 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said: It's not as simple as that though. Yes the evidence did pass the initial test, but the same doubts were known to the Crown Office in 2012/13 as were known in England. They carried on regardless. In England, by an oddity of law, the Post Office was able to bring certain charges against postmasters. However other charges were also brought by the CPS (their equiv of our COPFS) depending on the alleged offences. While it is true that there were serious questions about the system as far back as 2013, prosecutions (by the CPS) continued in England until 2015, at the rate of one per week............... The issue is very clearly that the evidence - as presented by the Post Office - either to courts in England, Scotland, or NI was not only flawed, but could even have been fabricated in order to back up their belief in the flawed Horizon system. Clearly there are questions to answer - but to politicise it is totally wrong when the real issues need to be laid at the door of the PO and Fujitsu. We have the ludicrous position here that the likes of the Scotsman and the BBC looking to turn this into a SNP bad story - I will pretty much guarantee that Dorothy Bain will tell Holyrood pretty much what I have above. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 17 minutes ago, Leith Green said: In England, by an oddity of law, the Post Office was able to bring certain charges against postmasters. However other charges were also brought by the CPS (their equiv of our COPFS) depending on the alleged offences. While it is true that there were serious questions about the system as far back as 2013, prosecutions (by the CPS) continued in England until 2015, at the rate of one per week............... The issue is very clearly that the evidence - as presented by the Post Office - either to courts in England, Scotland, or NI was not only flawed, but could even have been fabricated in order to back up their belief in the flawed Horizon system. Clearly there are questions to answer - but to politicise it is totally wrong when the real issues need to be laid at the door of the PO and Fujitsu. We have the ludicrous position here that the likes of the Scotsman and the BBC looking to turn this into a SNP bad story - I will pretty much guarantee that Dorothy Bain will tell Holyrood pretty much what I have above. You're completely missing the point. The Post Office presented no evidence on their own behalf to any court in Scotland. The evidence went to the Crown Office, who are supposedly independent. They take a view on evidence and equally should reconsider if further evidence comes to light. Similarly the decision not to consider whether the convictions were unsafe is and always has been a decision to be taken in Scotland. For our First Minister to effectively blame the UK government for not acting quickly enough is a stunning example of SNP buck passing. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, MacDonald Jardine said: You're completely missing the point. The Post Office presented no evidence on their own behalf to any court in Scotland. The evidence went to the Crown Office, who are supposedly independent. They take a view on evidence and equally should reconsider if further evidence comes to light. Similarly the decision not to consider whether the convictions were unsafe is and always has been a decision to be taken in Scotland. For our First Minister to effectively blame the UK government for not acting quickly enough is a stunning example of SNP buck passing. I am not missing the point at all. Some very specific charges were allowed to be presented and prosecuted by the PO in England. These had to be prosecuted by the Crown Office up here. If the evidence was cast iron - and it appeared to be at the time - then why wouldnt the CO prosecute them? In the same way as the more serious charges were prosecuted by the CPS in England? The inquiry is being facilitated by the UK govt, the PO is owned by the UK govt, its not that much of a stretch to suggest that the Scot Gov cant really unilaterally decide to quash convictions without detailed and solid guidance from these institutions. FFS, we only had the Post Office chief investigator giving evidence at the inquiry this week, its not yet finished ! They havent yet concluded that the evidence was all fabricated, so you tell me - on exactly what grounds should the Scottish system quash convictions, when there are still hundreds with convictions live against postmasters in England? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 58 minutes ago, Leith Green said: I am not missing the point at all. Some very specific charges were allowed to be presented and prosecuted by the PO in England. These had to be prosecuted by the Crown Office up here. If the evidence was cast iron - and it appeared to be at the time - then why wouldnt the CO prosecute them? In the same way as the more serious charges were prosecuted by the CPS in England? The inquiry is being facilitated by the UK govt, the PO is owned by the UK govt, its not that much of a stretch to suggest that the Scot Gov cant really unilaterally decide to quash convictions without detailed and solid guidance from these institutions. FFS, we only had the Post Office chief investigator giving evidence at the inquiry this week, its not yet finished ! They havent yet concluded that the evidence was all fabricated, so you tell me - on exactly what grounds should the Scottish system quash convictions, when there are still hundreds with convictions live against postmasters in England? It can. We have a separate legal system. Ignoring the mechanism for of how it is achieved (whether by legal appeal or the government) convictions up here could be quashed regardless of what happens, or doesn't happen in England/Wales. Good luck finding a single person in the entire country that doesn't currently believe the evidence was fabricated/unsound. That most peoples knowledge of the shambles is only due to the recent TV thing matters not a jot. I'd reckon that anyone that has been following the case for the last 10 years or more has had serious doubts the evidence was unsound (and in that I include the Post Office themselves, the legal systems and governments both North and South of the border). It's been known by the COPFS for 10 years (although they only stopped prosecuting 8 years ago) and therefore all the convictions are by definition unsafe, even those (and there are likely some) who did steal from/defraud the Post Office. That's the grounds the convictions should (and have been) be quashed on both here and in England. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Left Back said: It can. We have a separate legal system. Ignoring the mechanism for of how it is achieved (whether by legal appeal or the government) convictions up here could be quashed regardless of what happens, or doesn't happen in England/Wales. Good luck finding a single person in the entire country that doesn't currently believe the evidence was fabricated/unsound. That most peoples knowledge of the shambles is only due to the recent TV thing matters not a jot. I'd reckon that anyone that has been following the case for the last 10 years or more has had serious doubts the evidence was unsound (and in that I include the Post Office themselves, the legal systems and governments both North and South of the border). It's been known by the COPFS for 10 years (although they only stopped prosecuting 8 years ago) and therefore all the convictions are by definition unsafe, even those (and there are likely some) who did steal from/defraud the Post Office. That's the grounds the convictions should (and have been) be quashed on both here and in England. I dont disagree with your rationale here, however you would have to be blind, deaf and a wee bit stupid to think that - if the Scottish govt unilaterally decided to quash convictions 10 years ago, (a) without the inquiry evidence and (b) before England started to do it - then we ALL know exactly what the reaction would have been from unionist politicians, media and people like yourself. That Yousaf is saying that he thinks the simplest thing is to use a tool whereby overturning the English convictions can be folded into our laws immediately tells you that he wants this resolved and pronto. Its not ideal, and all these poor buggers have my sympathy - but its the PO and Fujitsu to blame, not the fucking SNP........ Like I said, I dont particularly blame any of the parties down south about this - and I stand by my point that it is utterly ludicrous that people like Ross ARE politicising it, abetted nicely by the likes of the Scotsman, Herald and BBC Scotland. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Leith Green said: I dont disagree with your rationale here, however you would have to be blind, deaf and a wee bit stupid to think that - if the Scottish govt unilaterally decided to quash convictions 10 years ago, (a) without the inquiry evidence and (b) before England started to do it - then we ALL know exactly what the reaction would have been from unionist politicians, media and people like yourself. That Yousaf is saying that he thinks the simplest thing is to use a tool whereby overturning the English convictions can be folded into our laws immediately tells you that he wants this resolved and pronto. Its not ideal, and all these poor buggers have my sympathy - but its the PO and Fujitsu to blame, not the fucking SNP........ Like I said, I dont particularly blame any of the parties down south about this - and I stand by my point that it is utterly ludicrous that people like Ross ARE politicising it, abetted nicely by the likes of the Scotsman, Herald and BBC Scotland. I didn't blame the SNP for this and I don't see anyone else doing so either. I don't know exactly when the Scottish Government were told about concerns with the convictions (which would presumably come from the COPFS) but to say they couldn't have acted sooner to right the wrongs done to people in Scotland is nonsense as they've certainly known about the concerns way before now. It is indeed impossible for the UK gov to right those wrongs and has to be done in Scotland. If piggy-backing off the back of UK legislation is the quickest way to sort it at this point in time then go for it but it would have been entirely possible for independent legislation to be passed in Scotland to sort it previously had there been the political will. That of course is doubtful as quashing convictions by legislation I think is unprecedented. It also doesn't take a public enquiry to know these convictions were unsafe. I think the first ones were overturned in 2019 so it's absolutely been known since then. Serious alarm bells should have been ringing as soon as it came to light that Fujitsu/PO could alter data without the subbies knowledge (and that came to light well before the first convictions were over-turned) and the Post Office told in no uncertain terms they were at it with this whole fiasco and their actions. Had Scotland acted sooner any right-minded persons reaction would have been one of relief and the validity of that action would have been subsequently borne out by events in England. That it wasn't politically expedient isn't an excuse or justification, the same as it shouldn't be in England. Both governments are at fault here for not fixing this a long time ago by whatever means. In principle governments shouldn't interfere in the judicial process. It's separated for good reason and I'm not entirely comfortable that this precedent won't lead to unrelated issues further down the line. That being said I absolutely agree that waiting for normal appeals/reviews in this case would be farcical but I'd also wager that if the series hadn't been aired last week that's exactly what would have happened. All that's changed is that it's now politically expedient to fix the mess as soon as possible. For reference Humza is also politicising this. On the news on Monday he was taking shots at the UK government over this saying they should have acted sooner. Glass houses and all that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, Left Back said: I didn't blame the SNP for this and I don't see anyone else doing so either. I don't know exactly when the Scottish Government were told about concerns with the convictions (which would presumably come from the COPFS) but to say they couldn't have acted sooner to right the wrongs done to people in Scotland is nonsense as they've certainly known about the concerns way before now. It is indeed impossible for the UK gov to right those wrongs and has to be done in Scotland. If piggy-backing off the back of UK legislation is the quickest way to sort it at this point in time then go for it but it would have been entirely possible for independent legislation to be passed in Scotland to sort it previously had there been the political will. That of course is doubtful as quashing convictions by legislation I think is unprecedented. It also doesn't take a public enquiry to know these convictions were unsafe. I think the first ones were overturned in 2019 so it's absolutely been known since then. Serious alarm bells should have been ringing as soon as it came to light that Fujitsu/PO could alter data without the subbies knowledge (and that came to light well before the first convictions were over-turned) and the Post Office told in no uncertain terms they were at it with this whole fiasco and their actions. Had Scotland acted sooner any right-minded persons reaction would have been one of relief and the validity of that action would have been subsequently borne out by events in England. That it wasn't politically expedient isn't an excuse or justification, the same as it shouldn't be in England. Both governments are at fault here for not fixing this a long time ago by whatever means. In principle governments shouldn't interfere in the judicial process. It's separated for good reason and I'm not entirely comfortable that this precedent won't lead to unrelated issues further down the line. That being said I absolutely agree that waiting for normal appeals/reviews in this case would be farcical but I'd also wager that if the series hadn't been aired last week that's exactly what would have happened. All that's changed is that it's now politically expedient to fix the mess as soon as possible. For reference Humza is also politicising this. On the news on Monday he was taking shots at the UK government over this saying they should have acted sooner. Glass houses and all that. No one was looking to right the wrongs on this bar those wronged against before the TV show. No matter how much politicians from all sides might try to convince us they were, it took a TV drama to have any real effect which is the real scandal here. There was zero appetite amongst all political parties to quash convictions or pay compensation. ANY and ALL politicians could have made these decisions a long time ago but didn't. The only good guys in all of this are the campaigners themselves and the TV company who commissioned the programme. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, Left Back said: Had Scotland acted sooner any right-minded persons reaction would have been one of relief and the validity of that action would have been subsequently borne out by events in England. I admire your certainty on this aspect ! I will say no more, you have your opinion, I have mine. Lets see if they can sort it out quickly for the sake of these poor people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 hours ago, Leith Green said: I admire your certainty on this aspect ! I will say no more, you have your opinion, I have mine. Lets see if they can sort it out quickly for the sake of these poor people. Your opinion isn't supported by the weight of evidence though, so is not of equal merit in assessing this case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 4 minutes ago, virginton said: Your opinion isn't supported by the weight of evidence though, so is not of equal merit in assessing this case. You started typing that 2 hours ago, its clear you gave it a lot of thought......................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 18 hours ago, MacDonald Jardine said: I'm sure they're not. They're pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy of criticising the Westminster government for the scandal when the Crown Office decided to prosecute the same thing in Scotland while having the same information. Under an SNP government by the way. 1) The Scottish Government doesn't own the Post Office though. It's owned by the UK Government. Accordingly, it was employees of the UK Government that were telling lies in court 2) The Crown Office is independent of the Scottish Government 9 hours ago, MacDonald Jardine said: The Post Office presented no evidence on their own behalf to any court in Scotland. The Post Office (either through their own staff or their legal team) will have submitted the initial report(s) to COPFS through SRAWEB (the portal via which non-police reports must be submitted). Any report will include statements from the investigating officers detailing their investigation, and will also include a statement that Horizon was operating correctly at the time of the alleged offence. The Post Office would also be responsible for compiling & producing the disclosure schedules which are given to the defence. Accordingly, if the report progresses to trial, the Fiscal will lead the prosecution witnesses through their statements in court. Without the Post Office evidence, the Crown would have no case! 5 hours ago, Left Back said: It is indeed impossible for the UK gov to right those wrongs and has to be done in Scotland. Under devolution, power devolved is power retained. The UK Doctorine of Parliamentary Supremacy states that Westminster can do what it wants to. There is absolutely nothing preventing Westminster from righting these wrongs without involving Hoyrood in any way whatsoever, 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, Leith Green said: You started typing that 2 hours ago, its clear you gave it a lot of thought......................... No I didn't, thanks for playing anyway though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 18 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: 1) The Scottish Government doesn't own the Post Office though. It's owned by the UK Government. Accordingly, it was employees of the UK Government that were telling lies in court 2) The Crown Office is independent of the Scottish Government The Post Office (either through their own staff or their legal team) will have submitted the initial report(s) to COPFS through SRAWEB (the portal via which non-police reports must be submitted). Any report will include statements from the investigating officers detailing their investigation, and will also include a statement that Horizon was operating correctly at the time of the alleged offence. The Post Office would also be responsible for compiling & producing the disclosure schedules which are given to the defence. Accordingly, if the report progresses to trial, the Fiscal will lead the prosecution witnesses through their statements in court. Without the Post Office evidence, the Crown would have no case! Under devolution, power devolved is power retained. The UK Doctorine of Parliamentary Supremacy states that Westminster can do what it wants to. There is absolutely nothing preventing Westminster from righting these wrongs without involving Hoyrood in any way whatsoever, Really? UK gov can quash convictions handed down by a Scottish court? Wonder why Humza’s bothering his arse thinking about it then? Let them get on with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, Left Back said: Really? UK gov can quash convictions handed down by a Scottish court? Wonder why Humza’s bothering his arse thinking about it then? Let them get on with it. Yes. Really. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarized in three points: Parliament can make laws concerning anything. No parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future parliament). A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. However, just because Westminster can doesn't mean that Westminster will. I was only pointing out the idiocy of your statement that " It is indeed impossible for the UK gov to right those wrongs and has to be done in Scotland." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 17 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Yes. Really. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarized in three points: Parliament can make laws concerning anything. No parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future parliament). A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. However, just because Westminster can doesn't mean that Westminster will. I was only pointing out the idiocy of your statement that " It is indeed impossible for the UK gov to right those wrongs and has to be done in Scotland." Your argument seems to be that Westminster could fix this in Scotland but they won't because of reasons? Well both the Scottish Government and UK government would disagree with your legal analysis. https://www.gov.scot/news/steps-to-be-taken-to-ensure-scotland-is-part-of-a-uk-wide-approach-to-post-office-convictions/ They could both be talking shite and are of course all idiots in your view seeing as they've saying exactly what I wrote. On balance though I think I'll accept the views of the governments over yours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 My argument is that power devolved is power retained. As long as Scotland remains part of the UK, Westminster can do whatever it likes. Just because Westminster hasn't abolished the Scottish Parliament doesn't mean that it cannot do so. As such, your initial statement that it is impossible for Westminster to right these wrongs is demonstrable nonsense, irrespective of the current willingness of the Scottish Government to work jointly toward a UK-wide solution. Do you really think that Westminster would stand back and say "It's a Scottish Govt responsibility" if compensation in Scotland was set at a far greater rate than down South? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 10 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: My argument is that power devolved is power retained. As long as Scotland remains part of the UK, Westminster can do whatever it likes. Just because Westminster hasn't abolished the Scottish Parliament doesn't mean that it cannot do so. As such, your initial statement that it is impossible for Westminster to right these wrongs is demonstrable nonsense, irrespective of the current willingness of the Scottish Government to work jointly toward a UK-wide solution. Do you really think that Westminster would stand back and say "It's a Scottish Govt responsibility" if compensation in Scotland was set at a far greater rate than down South? I’ll leave you to your wee constitutional tantrum. Enjoy your night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 4 minutes ago, Left Back said: I’ll leave you to your wee constitutional tantrum. Enjoy your night. Ah yes. Point out that someone is has posted nonsense and get accused of having a tantrum. Never change, Pie & Bovril! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 This is a bit upside down. Nationalists arguing that the UK Parlaiment has the power to resolve this and Unionists arguing that the Scottish Parlaiment has the power. Interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.