Post Office scandal

An additional thought: surely whether or not ‘the people’ knew about this or, indeed understood it is far less important than the fact (I’d wager a lot on) that the politicians, particularly those in positions of influence and power, who are now falling over themselves to demonstrate their empathy and outrage DID know and DID understand and, I’d hazard a strong supposition, watched the panorama documentary in 2015 and subsequent reports and updates in various portions of the media for years. They surely didn’t need a tv drama? And they were the only people in a position to actually do anything about it. Me, you, Mam, Dad, Auntie Vera and Uncle Jim knowing about it cos we watched it in the telly and Uncle Frank telling us about a Private Eye thing he read - coz you know Uncle Frank, he’s a bit radical and that - didn’t make a ha’porth of difference.

The real question is why did it take a tv drama to get their outrage gland swelling up when the national broadcaster has reported in the same topic for years?
 
Last edited:


So the fact that you weren’t aware is the fault of the people who reported what they knew (a lot of which was unclear and obscured by people telling lies, which was part of the issue)? And the responsibility for it continuing to be covered up lies with the people who were reporting that it looked like a cover up, because they knew that something was happening, that it warranted further investigation by the people who’s responsibility it was to investigate?

Somehow the people who lied, covered up, who incompetently investigated when their job was to do so and who bore a legal responsibility, who were corrupt, cruel, and criminal are not the people you choose to criticise. Just the people who repeatedly investigated and reported on it. Because they should have made a tv drama about it instead? For you.

So, let’s just extend this; anything in the political, legal, corporate or whatever field that is a bit dodgy, that is known and reported, but maybe not understood or cared deeply enough about by the general public, should he subjected to a tv drama because that’s the way to best communicate stuff.

Toby Jones is gonna be busy.

(Or is it that hammering the BBC is perceived as fair enough under a range of circumstances. Is there and agenda or summat?)
what I said was
It was only when it was put into such a plain and easy format to view / listen and with a lot of explanation that the public stood up and listened.

it is the job of the media news to communicate with the public

The very fact that it took so long, is in fact a testament that the whole story was not put over accurately or in a way the public understood.

Is it not a fact that the public really took notice of this is after watching Mr Bates v PO

aspects were reported prior, court cases being overturned , but the drama nobody put a comprehensive case forward explaining things. Some people would have a very good knowledge because they followed and retained knowledge of happenings.

You wasted your breath with the second sentence and your third is also a waste of space.

media news has the job to communicate to its audience, if it cannot communicate properly it is not doing its job.
The convictions were starting to be overturned in 2019 and 2020, long before ITV made a drama about it. This was as a result of the BBC and Private Eye investigations. It's been quite newsworthy since then and it seems you want to blame them for Joe Public's ignorance. Even this thread has been going since 2021!

I think you're giving ITV a lot of undeserved credit tbh.
Nobody can take credit. what was the first group called. was it 555 the number of people wronged (in that first tranch). In fact was it declared many times - nobody is listening to us.
An additional thought: surely whether or not ‘the people’ knew about this or, indeed understood it is far less important than the fact (I’d wager a lot on) that the politicians, particularly those in positions of influence and power, who are now falling over themselves to demonstrate their empathy and outrage DID know and DID understand and, I’d hazard a strong supposition, watched the panorama documentary in 2015 and subsequent reports and updates in various portions of the media for years. They surely didn’t need a tv drama? And they were the only people in a position to actually do anything about it. Me, you, Mam, Dad, Auntie Vera and Uncle Jim knowing about it cos we watched it in the telly and Uncle Frank telling us about a Private Eye thing he read - coz you know Uncle Frank, he’s a bit radical and that - didn’t make a ha’porth of difference.

The real question is why did it take a tv drama to get their outrage gland swelling up when the national broadcaster has reported in the same topic for years?
I cannot disagree with a lot of what you say. Why did the public need a drama, because the story went back so many years, probably at least since 1999. Some viewers were not even born then. The public needed a simple but comprehensible update.
I have no time for the politicians, who even refused to meet with the wronged. And Again i do say, that it is down to the media to make sure their audience understands what they are saying.
 
Last edited:
what I said was
It was only when it was put into such a plain and easy format to view / listen and with a lot of explanation that the public stood up and listened.

it is the job of the media news to communicate with the public

The very fact that it took so long, is in fact a testament that the whole story was not put over accurately or in a way the public understood.

Is it not a fact that the public really took notice of this is after watching Mr Bates v PO

aspects were reported prior, court cases being overturned , but the drama nobody put a comprehensive case forward explaining things. Some people would have a very good knowledge because they followed and retained knowledge of happenings.

You wasted your breath with the second sentence and your third is also a waste of space.

media news has the job to communicate to its audience, if it cannot communicate properly it is not doing its job.

Nobody can take credit. what was the first group called. was it 555 the number of people wronged (in that first tranch). In fact was it declared many times - nobody is listening to us.

It doesn't seem fair to be criticising the BBC for this not breaking through. They took the matter forward with some very high profile factual programming, the type that in the last has had a big impact on events. It was also covered extensively by Private Eye and Computer Weekly, publications which are known to be seen by influential relevant audiences. Lord Arbuthnot was leading the charge inside parliament. It's a sad fact that the general public doesn't pay as much attention as it should to crusading documentaries, but every relevant part of the government was exposed to this. For previous issues and scandals this had been enough to lead to change.

There was more than enough exposure this time and the only difference was the quality and character of the people in government since 2010. Someone didn't do their job properly this past decade, but on this matter at least it wasn't the BBC.
 
This thread started in 2021 man, nearly three years before the docu-drama. Plenty of people were taking an interest. You're trying to excuse your ignorance of current affairs.
i think I have the interest in current affairs of the average person and in some fields way above that level. I have already said some people are far more knowledge than others on this particular subject.

since this thread started in 2021, as you pointed it, it only has 70 pages. What does that insinuate. in 4 years, 70 pages, so on average 17/18 pages a year. Not much interest except for the few, which in fact is what I am saying
 
i think I have the interest in current affairs of the average person and in some fields way above that level. I have already said some people are far more knowledge than others on this particular subject.

since this thread started in 2021, as you pointed it, it only has 70 pages. What does that insinuate. in 4 years, 70 pages, so on average 17/18 pages a year. Not much interest except for the few, which in fact is what I am saying

It's regularly been bumped to the top of the page as and when things happen. For many years the BBC and Private Eye were the only people (and James Arbuthnot) knocking at the door and that was despite the Post Office/Fujitsu withholding evidence, lying under oath, using threats court orders to suppress reporting. They certainly helped a lot more to get the convictions overturned than ITV.
 
i think I have the interest in current affairs of the average person and in some fields way above that level. I have already said some people are far more knowledge than others on this particular subject.

since this thread started in 2021, as you pointed it, it only has 70 pages. What does that insinuate. in 4 years, 70 pages, so on average 17/18 pages a year. Not much interest except for the few, which in fact is what I am saying

You seem very keen to blame the BBC for something.
 
You seem very keen to blame the BBC for something.
its media I am blaming
It's regularly been bumped to the top of the page as and when things happen. For many years the BBC and Private Eye were the only people (and James Arbuthnot) knocking at the door and that was despite the Post Office/Fujitsu withholding evidence, lying under oath, using threats court orders to suppress reporting. They certainly helped a lot more to get the convictions overturned than ITV.
criminals dont often roll over. Investigating journalists, gets round that. as ive asked before, why did the bbc employ a guy whose also created false bank statements as in the bashir case. I do not favour ITN in this . I blame the majority of media. In fact I never ever watch ITN news
 
Last edited:
its media I am blaming

criminals dont often roll over. Investigating journalists, gets round that. as ive asked before, why did the bbc employ a guy whose also created false bank statements as in the bashir case. I do not favour ITN in this . I blame the majority of media. In fact I never ever watch ITN news

OK I give in.
 
its media I am blaming

criminals dont often roll over. Investigating journalists, gets round that. as ive asked before, why did the bbc employ a guy whose also created false bank statements as in the bashir case. I do not favour ITN in this . I blame the majority of media. In fact I never ever watch ITN news

Wtf has Bashir got to do with this? You're a reet f*cking gonk.
 
if you cannot see a connection with editorial decision making then thats not my problem

is there any need to resort to insults

im out now.
Which bit of editorial decision making led to you (or the other people of which you speak) not understanding the panorama programme, subsequent reports and investigations and other media (your assertion) reports such as the private eye expose, to not appreciate or understand the scandal until Toby Jones explained it properly?
 
if you cannot see a connection with editorial decision making then thats not my problem

is there any need to resort to insults

im out now.

One minute you're bringing up investigative journalism by the BBC and the next you're bringing up editorial decision making. The two are usually separate in most news organisations. It was investigated by journalists at the BBC, I even posted a link to a Panorama programme in 2015 (there was another Panorama programme in 2019 too). The editors ran with it. What else do you think the BBC should have done? Ran it as the main news item every night for years?

Have you watched the Panorama programmes or listened to the BBC podcast?
 
One minute you're bringing up investigative journalism by the BBC and the next you're bringing up editorial decision making. The two are usually separate in most news organisations. It was investigated by journalists at the BBC, I even posted a link to a Panorama programme in 2015 (there was another Panorama programme in 2019 too). The editors ran with it. What else do you think the BBC should have done? Ran it as the main news item every night for years?

Have you watched the Panorama programmes or listened to the BBC podcast?

I think he’s suggesting that it should have been a weekly Saturday night programme presented by Ant & Dec and featuring glove puppets. Only then would the public have understood the complexity. It’s the lack of editorial decision making like this that rendered the media totally and entirely culpable for everything.
I'm pretty sure I posted about this about 7 years ago

Did you present it via the medium of dance and incorporate the music of Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders though? If not, how’s anybody supposed to understand it?
 
Last edited:
what I said was
It was only when it was put into such a plain and easy format to view / listen and with a lot of explanation that the public stood up and listened.

it is the job of the media news to communicate with the public

The very fact that it took so long, is in fact a testament that the whole story was not put over accurately or in a way the public understood.

Is it not a fact that the public really took notice of this is after watching Mr Bates v PO

aspects were reported prior, court cases being overturned , but the drama nobody put a comprehensive case forward explaining things. Some people would have a very good knowledge because they followed and retained knowledge of happenings.

You wasted your breath with the second sentence and your third is also a waste of space.

media news has the job to communicate to its audience, if it cannot communicate properly it is not doing its job.

Nobody can take credit. what was the first group called. was it 555 the number of people wronged (in that first tranch). In fact was it declared many times - nobody is listening to us.

I cannot disagree with a lot of what you say. Why did the public need a drama, because the story went back so many years, probably at least since 1999. Some viewers were not even born then. The public needed a simple but comprehensible update.
I have no time for the politicians, who even refused to meet with the wronged. And Again i do say, that it is down to the media to make sure their audience understands what they are saying.

I didn't watch the docu drama as I don't particularly like that type of show. I knew about this story long before the docu drama anyway. I also knew about it before this thread. I knew about it because it has been discussed on more then one occasion over the years by the BBC on radio 2. I think the BBC has covered it fairly well and in a way that made it easy to understand.
 

Back
Top