I have, in the past, commented on the amount of space devoted to subjects which are relevant only to life in the UK. So now I have a dilemma which I am trying to resolve.
Recent events in the UK have revealed how a public company, 100 % state owned, had avoided legal scrutiny for decades. It has enjoyed the use of powers which are almost unique which have facilitated a widespread abuse of power.
Sound familiar? Does this not also have resonance with Brexit? The powers entrusted to the Head of State were put to one side. The action was launched by an advisory referendum and never ratified by the electorate. An attempt was made to shut down parliament and stifle debate. In a nutshell Parliament was able to act in a manner which put them beyond the law. Just like the Post Office.
When is somebody going to instigate action. Is there a Mister Bates waiting to come forward and pursue certain members of our governing society of, at best, incompetence and at worst treason.
Not sure about that but you did plant a thought in my head, was the PO a bit like the East India Company, which had its own army, and the Hudson’s Bay Company, which was similarly autocratic?
Not just the Post Office but my BIL who has been an international trucker for the past 35years has said the number of well established and long running haulage companies in the UK (Scotland and NI included) closing down is increasing every month and its getting worrying. I think personally and he won’t have it because he is a staunch brexiter, but businesses in the UK especially haulage now are finding brexit is ruining their lives because its just not worth the costs involved for very little profit. The PO has always been a bit of a secretive outfit in my opinion and the people who ran/run it never held to account or even bought to light.
Yes, I never fail to be amazed at the number of my colleagues in the haulage industry who were determined Brexiteers. Especially those in the international section which also included the owners.
The debate on TruckNet UK leading up to the referendum was bitter and violently insulting, such as would not be allowed on this forum. Perhaps because that forum’s very strict swearing policy (even bloody and bugger are, or were, banned. Lorry drivers have very delicate sensibilities ) it encouraged extremism in other ways in the debate but throughout the hundreds of pages only 2 of us, the other a current international driver from Southampton, were really involved in defending the remain camp. It is possible, because one or 2 small voices of support popped up from time to time, that the majority did not want to be so vilified and so decided to stay away.
My experience of such things is that only the extremes continue in the debate when things become vicious, the majority not wishing to get involved even when their opinions are strongly held. Basically it just shuts down any real discussion.
Not sure what that says about Franglais (the clue to his attitude is in the username) and me then, we stuck it out through thick and thin even in the face of such facistic out pourings such as putting immigrants in a plane and pushing them out without a parachute over France. That from the retired owner of an international haulage compnay now still operated by his sons. I note they never came on the forum to back up Dad though.
Fair enough, sometimes one has to just take a stand out of decency. That sounds like the kind of stupidity one would hear in the playground, but you don’t expect from adults capable of holding down a job.
It’s an attractive idea but a complete non-starter, I’m afraid.
The government is elected to govern. There is no obligation to keep to its manifesto promises, much less any penalty for anything it does.
As a practical point, I would hate the UK to become like certain countries which prosecuted members of previous governments for political acts.
However, I was astonished that the PO has responsibility for its own prosecutions. I’m reasonably sure that, had the CPS been responsible, the provisions for disclosure of material which potentially undermined the prosecution case would have prevented these miscarriages. (I imagine the reason that didn’t happen with the PO prosecutions is that the PO prosecutors weren’t independent.)