Been watching Sky News about the inquiry into the Post Office computer software scandal which led to 700 innocent postmasters being wrongly convicted. The inquiry is ongoing. God, this makes my blood boil. Did nobody join the dots? Did the Post Office genuinely believe there was a sudden mass outbreak of dishonesty amongst postmasters? And that they were all so blatant that their computer systems were able to easily expose their wrongdoing? In the same way, every time? With no cover up? Just undisguised false accounting? By all of them on such a big scale? Who did other accounting systems not expose their computer errors? For example, government records for giros, pensions etc. The pigheaded arrogance of the Post Office is staggering. The willingness of police, courts etc to accept what they claimed without proper scrutiny or investigation beggars belief. Did somebody not think there might be something wrong with the software? I hope the heads of those involved at the Post Office roll - literally
There was a series on Radio 4 about it, it might still be on Sounds app. The full story is almost worse. Certainly the top brass at the Post Office knew about the software error while the prosecutions were continuing. But as you say, it beggars belief that this happened, or that they thought they could get away with it. But there is never any proper corporate responsibility. To link it to a current story, I really hope it doesn't happen, but if there is a maritime disaster leading to deaths with any of the re-crewed P&O ships, then I think the people that made the decision should face manslaughter charges. Of course it won't happen because when there is any blame to be attributed, nobody can be sure whose decision it actually was. Funnily enough, when there's bonuses to be handed out, directors are more than happy to claim responsibility for things going right.
Either my neighbour has erected a monstrosity of a fence at the back of her garden to spite somebody, or Jurassic Park is expanding into Europe
I've just finished the Great Post Office Scandal by Nick Wallis , the PO and government at the highest are involved in the cover up , disgusting , to think Paula Vennells was a church minister while this was going on
Meanwhile, I suggest skipping the Jeremy Kyle doc on Channel 4 Not because it's bad, because it isn't, but because you'll find yourself both depressed and really ****ing angry
I've worked in that industry for over 30 years , getting a bit Teflon to the tricks of the management teams over the years but they always leave with a golden handshake and another job for the boys n girls no matter what **** ups the make along the way
In this case apparently not, the production team got cast aside when the axe fell, in no small part because a lot of the production team were younger people trying to break into TV they picked up in Manchester so ultimately expendable, and having that show on their CV isn't going to open many doors given the horror stories of how that ship was run Then again, I could've told you in 2005 there were a couple of huge red flags for that show, because a.) My first experience of Jeremy Kyle was when he was on Virgin radio where his show was just tearing into people who called in, so having him host what was effectively a rehash of Trish where he laid into guests was going to leave a trail of devastation in its wake b.) I have first-hand experience of the show from a time where ITV posted a job ad and I applied, and I got a call saying I didn't get the job but they offered me the chance to watch a programmed being made and to ask the producers questions afterwards - and that's how I wound up in the audience for one of the earliest episodes of that grotty little show, which is also why if you find the earliest episodes you'll notice the audience is dressed up like they're at a job interview because so many people were duped into padding the audience for those early shows (although on the plus side, this also means that lipreaders will have picked up on me telling somebody to "Shut the **** up" at 9:45 in the morning...)
If his stats on Transfermarkt are correct, then he's on 99 career straight red cards. Anyone think that he's not going to make it 100 before heading for the VAR screens?
Neil Warnock, who never misses an opportunity to bash referees, said on Talksport this morning that he should have gone 10 years ago. Laura Woods asked Warnock if he would send Dean a happy retirement card, to which he said I wouldn’t waste the cost of a stamp on him.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...l-managers-clubs-three-seasons-marcelo-bielsa Wasn’t sure where to post this so I thought I’d put it here. Interesting article on 3-year cycles in management. I think it makes some good points. Poch is a great case study, and while they arguably mischaracterise his Spurs tenure slightly - they correctly identify his peak league form being years 2 and 3, but fail to mention the CL final run, though our league form did stagnate in the last 18 months or so of his time here - I think the cycle itself is moderately interesting. Year 1 to refine the squad and instil a mentality and tactics, years 2 and 3 to perfect them. Where the cycle obviously fails is that after year 3, you typically have to rebuild - both to combat player turnover and institutional fatigue. You need new players, fresh faces around the place, maybe a tweak in coaching staff or at least tactics. Other clubs work you out and it’s not always possible to replace players like-for-like. The obvious all-time leader in this was Fergie, though Pep and Klopp are attempting it now with their clubs, obviously at nowhere near the timeframe SAF did, at least yet anyway. Any takeaways? Nothing stunningly revelatory. But change is good. Obviously a chairman or DoF figure is also key, who can steward the club through the changes and identify the right players and managers to keep a side performing, either while extending the cycle or finding a new coach. I guess the ultimate goal is to find a SAF, or get some good at finding coaches that you cut down the year 1 adaptation timeline to more like half a season and retain CL position/keep winning trophies through transition. Money obviously helps and it’s easier to do all this from a position of strength.
Wanted to mention my sample of one (so not necessarily representative). I thought that fuel duty fell by 5p yesterday at 1800. The petrol station I drive by every day to work hasn't changed it's price. Does anyone else have experience of how the fuel duty cut was or was not passed on? Also thinking that this isn't the most sensible way of helping the consumer. After all, the government could cut 5p and the next day the oil companies put 5p back saying "it's the market, init". All this has been is an exercise to pass 5p per litre to the oil companies. Who probably don't need the money.
Fuel duty dropped by 5p yesterday, which means that...petrol is 5p more expensive than it was eighteen months ago Of course, the Tories know what they're doing when they're in charge of our money...
