0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The prosecutions were private ones brought by the Post Office. In essence the PO were Perpetrator, Investigator and Accuser in court. The CPS were not involved, (in England & Wales - slightly different in Scotland).
Well that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surely
Well that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surely
Quote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 09:22:07 amThe prosecutions were private ones brought by the Post Office. In essence the PO were Perpetrator, Investigator and Accuser in court. The CPS were not involved, (in England & Wales - slightly different in Scotland). 10 cases taken by the CPS resulted in convictions.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 09:43:29 amQuote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 09:22:07 amThe prosecutions were private ones brought by the Post Office. In essence the PO were Perpetrator, Investigator and Accuser in court. The CPS were not involved, (in England & Wales - slightly different in Scotland). 10 cases taken by the CPS resulted in convictions. Out of over 700 cases! Were they ones taken in Scotland as I pointed out the e rules were different there? Also, do you have a time frame for when these 10 were taken?
Quote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 09:22:07 amThe prosecutions were private ones brought by the Post Office. In essence the PO were Perpetrator, Investigator and Accuser in court. The CPS were not involved, (in England & Wales - slightly different in Scotland). 10 cases taken by the CPS resulted in convictions.
The prosecutions were private ones brought by the Post Office. In essence the PO were Perpetrator, Investigator and Accuser in court. The CPS were not involved, (in England & Wales - slightly different in Scotland).
Quote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 10:05:19 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 09:43:29 amQuote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 09:22:07 amThe prosecutions were private ones brought by the Post Office. In essence the PO were Perpetrator, Investigator and Accuser in court. The CPS were not involved, (in England & Wales - slightly different in Scotland). 10 cases taken by the CPS resulted in convictions. Out of over 700 cases! Were they ones taken in Scotland as I pointed out the e rules were different there? Also, do you have a time frame for when these 10 were taken?You said the CPS was not involved. It was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS has confirmed it carried out prosecutions linked to the Post Office Horizon scandal - but can't (or won't) say when it happened.Why are you so defensive of the CPS around that time? Is it because Keir Starmer was the leader of it by any chance?
Quote from: Donnywolf on January 11, 2024, 09:23:59 amWell that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surelyMy point is, and always has been, had a Labour government been in office during and after the COVID pandemic the attitude and sympathy towards the task would have been far different, not least on this forum.
Well that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surely
YOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it?
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 09:54:56 amQuote from: Donnywolf on January 11, 2024, 09:23:59 amWell that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surelyMy point is, and always has been, had a Labour government been in office during and after the COVID pandemic the attitude and sympathy towards the task would have been far different, not least on this forum.And, as always, your bike and bias means you miss the point.If a Labour government had been in power during the start of COVID, we wouldn't have had a PM turning in front of the nation saying he'd just been to a hospital and shook hands with everyone, immediately after the Chief Medical Officer had implored people to reduce contact.Actually, I'm sure you DO get it, but you're too obsessively partisan to admit it.
Quote from: Donnywolf on January 11, 2024, 09:23:59 amWell that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surelyMy point is, and always has been, had a Labour government been in office during and after the COVID pandemic the attitude and sympathy towards the task would have been far different, not least on this forum.
Well that was the "thrust" of my point in that Chalk says they HAVE to appear and give evidence. They, I suspect, being the bloke who says he will give evidence as long as he is given immunity beforehandI immediately thought well what if they / he cant actually remember anything way back then and it goes back to 1999 and so involves all 3 main Parties in HOC ? What will Chalk and others do then ? Get the thumbscrews out ?If I were one of "them" I would say just look at Sunak who couldnt remember 75% of things he was asked at COVID , and couldnt provide the WhatsApps nor hundreds of documents AND where any one of the 3 elements may have been evIdential in exposing any wrongdoing by him or others , all in the framework of trying to avoid 200,000 deaths in the futureWho knows who will be in charge next time a Pandemic calls ? Maybe a Green Lib Dem middle of the road Govt , but it would be fairer on whoever is / was in charge next time round to have the reference book to show them what was learned from the last Covid Pandemic surely
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought itStop nit picking and grow up!
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!
Quote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 11:43:44 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!BB has not said that it’s all the fault of the CPS.Just where are you suggesting he did say that.
Quote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 11:43:44 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!BB has not said that it’s all the fault of the CPS.Just where are you suggesting he did say that.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!
YOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it?
Quote from: drfchound on January 11, 2024, 11:51:36 amQuote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 11:43:44 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!BB has not said that it’s all the fault of the CPS.Just where are you suggesting he did say that. I see BB's lap dog is quick to jump in on something that doesn't concern him. Appropriately named 'hound', appropriately named.
Quote from: drfchound on January 11, 2024, 11:51:36 amQuote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 11:43:44 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!BB has not said that it’s all the fault of the CPS.Just where are you suggesting he did say that.Cheers Hound! I thought I was cracking up at first! Talking with the likes of NNK can result in rather contagious brain confusion.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:57:32 amQuote from: drfchound on January 11, 2024, 11:51:36 amQuote from: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2024, 11:43:44 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 amYOU SAID THE CPS WAS NOT INVOLVED! I'm correcting you by saying it was linked to up to 38 cases where it brought criminal cases, but only 10 were convicted. The CPS might learn of a private prosecution via a press report. However, the CPS' legal guidance on private prosecutions explains that in such circumstances, in the absence of a specific request, “no action will generally be taken unless there are exceptional circumstances”.The CPS must have (obviously) thought a vast majority of those cases weren't exceptional!I don't know whether the cases were brought in Scotland. Do you? I'm basing my point on the CPS, and if the CPS doesn't have authority in Scotland, I am unaware of it. Why did you say The CPS was not involved in ANY of the convictions if you're not defending it? Ah, so it's all the fault of the CPS. Who'd have thought it! Stop nit picking and grow up!BB has not said that it’s all the fault of the CPS.Just where are you suggesting he did say that.Cheers Hound! I thought I was cracking up at first! Talking with the likes of NNK can result in rather contagious brain confusion. You cracked up years ago BB.
Amazing how the bbc are discredited by posters on here, unless of course they happen to fall in line with government bashing.It’s a bit like when Cummings was apparently a pathological liar when he was supporting Johnson’s government (some said he was actually running the government) and yet these days when he is giving evidence against them he is the purveyor of the whole truth and nothing but the truth.