"A final point, a question from Ms Shah for the NFSPMs, raises why the SPM contract has not been changed post-Bates. Cooper tells us it was dealt with by guidance instead; the Post Office said they were going to interpret the contract in line with the common issues judgment."
This is one of the maddest things I have ever read. Nearly five years since the judgement, and it's not been rewritten? I'm lost for words.
Thanks for this very interesting insight. Seems to show overwhelmingly that the presence of SHex on the PO board was completely ineffective - the gov were getting feedback on what was occurring but appear, from Mr Watson s evidence, to have been mere onlookers - seeming to be either powerless to change anything or to be afraid to do anything to stop
the POs mad bull charge towards an inevitable carnage. Overwhelmingly the "legals" opinion of the chances of success for the PO in the recusal application, appeals and shambolic cover-ups appears from all the evidence given so far to have been based on a crumbling facade.
"A final point, a question from Ms Shah for the NFSPMs, raises why the SPM contract has not been changed post-Bates. Cooper tells us it was dealt with by guidance instead; the Post Office said they were going to interpret the contract in line with the common issues judgment."
This is one of the maddest things I have ever read. Nearly five years since the judgement, and it's not been rewritten? I'm lost for words.
Fascinating post as ever - thanks.
Thanks for this very interesting insight. Seems to show overwhelmingly that the presence of SHex on the PO board was completely ineffective - the gov were getting feedback on what was occurring but appear, from Mr Watson s evidence, to have been mere onlookers - seeming to be either powerless to change anything or to be afraid to do anything to stop
the POs mad bull charge towards an inevitable carnage. Overwhelmingly the "legals" opinion of the chances of success for the PO in the recusal application, appeals and shambolic cover-ups appears from all the evidence given so far to have been based on a crumbling facade.
Fascinating, Richard. But I must ask, is it Macleod, McLeod or MacLeod? You've used all three.
Busted! I think it is MacLeod. Have changed it, thank you.