Post Office Enquiry (Van Den Bogerd giving evidence today)

1966_and_all_that said:
Alan Cook (MD 2006-10) now being questioned at the enquiry. He wrote in an e-mail (during his tenure) that the 'subbies' [sic] must be struggling so they've turned to defrauding the Post Office. Nice guy. Oh, he now regrets writing that.
Click to expand...
These days management tap out quick emails to each other instead of talking face to face or using the phone as they would have done in the past. Which was usually unrecorded and so could not be used as strong undeniable evidence. It required witnesses’ memories.

And that’s the true beauty of email. Recorded in perpetuity for posterity. Every little detail forms the chain of who knew, said and did, what and when. For years afterwards. Glorious.

As long as the crooks don’t delete it all, but then again, that’s also an offence and a big gap in the record tells its own story. But there may be multiple back-ups. Given the whistle blowers, there’s also the good chance that some lower down will have archived their own email records for self-protection knowing the executive tendency for throwing underlings in front of the oncoming bus. So it makes lying in court, or to a public inquiry, very much more hazardous.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
He had no idea that all of these prosecutions against sub-postmasters were happening. However, he was a member of the Executive team, minutes of which included e-attachments detailing all ongoing prosecutions over £100k.
Click to expand...
He was Managing Director of the Post Office for FOUR YEARS at the height of the prosecutions and claims he did not know that the PO could carry out its own criminal prosecutions independently of the CPS ?!?

Totally preposterous. Literally... unbelievable. The CPS should nail him on that basis alone.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been told that if you’ve something to say that you don’t want making public then say it in private directly to the person. But emails can be useful especially when there is evidence of a reply or read receipt, when someone tries to deny any knowledge of the conversation. If I want to for example complain or bring something important to someone’s attention which may have consequences detrimental to myself or others I always plump for an email.
Let’s just hope this absolute shambles is dealt with in a satisfactory manner & with that I mean jail.
 
Sooty59 said:
I’ve been told that if you’ve something to say that you don’t want making public then say it in private directly to the person. But emails can be useful especially when there is evidence of a reply or read receipt, when someone tries to deny any knowledge of the conversation. If I want to for example complain or bring something important to someone’s attention which may have consequences detrimental to myself or others I always plump for an email.
Let’s just hope this absolute shambles is dealt with in a satisfactory manner & with that I mean jail.
Click to expand...
That’s the reverse side of the same coin.
 
Mrs Van Den Bogerd was told by the special investigator that Carl Page's prosecution was unsafe as there was no evidence he had stolen anything. The investgator believed it was an issue with FOREX that Horizon could only cope with Sterling. MRS VDB agreed it needed to be investigated and did nothing. Days later she sat in front of a commons enquiry with Vennells and denied there were any problems with Horizon.

ITV have the tape of the conversation.

It will only be perjury if the Oath has been administered
 
Sooty59 said:
I’ve been told that if you’ve something to say that you don’t want making public then say it in private directly to the person. But emails can be useful especially when there is evidence of a reply or read receipt, when someone tries to deny any knowledge of the conversation. If I want to for example complain or bring something important to someone’s attention which may have consequences detrimental to myself or others I always plump for an email.
Let’s just hope this absolute shambles is dealt with in a satisfactory manner & with that I mean jail.
Click to expand...
Don't indulge in any breath-holding exercises.
 
It will be interesting to see, when the end is nigh, just how many of these 'Morons' actually get a custodial sentence.
I can just see Venables in 'stir', frightened of her own shadow.
Let's just hope that the most guilty get a few years.

On the other hand, will they actually get custodial sentences?
 
Kerrrist, now Adam Crozier, Royal Mail chairman for 6 years when the PO was part of it, is mimicking Alan Cook (PO managing director)... paraphrasing ...
  • No-one told me we were prosecuting hundreds of SPMs.
  • I didn’t know the Post Office was initiating prosecutions independently with no police investigation or CPS oversight.
  • I didn’t know the SPMs were pressured to plead guilty to avoid jail (although a number didn’t)
  • I didn’t attend any of the PO audit committees, and the issue was never brought to the RM audit committee.
  • Between 2000 and 2010, the Post Office knew about a number of bugs and issues with the Horizon system but I was never, ever told about any of them.
  • Crozier said that “auditors were ‘constantly testing’ that the Horizon IT system was working, including the ‘quality and consistency’ of the numbers” and yet minutes later he said “he cannot recall that he was shown anything that suggested the auditors were cross-checking the integrity of Horizon”.
  • I was totally focused on the financial solvency of RM/PO as there was widespread fraud by employees - yet the SPM prosecutions in his time were bringing in £9m in illegitimate “repayments”.
  • Despite the fact that SPMs had written directly to Crozier informing that the Horizon software was faulty, he made no attempt at an investigation. He “can’t remember”.
  • (Father Jack voice ON)... “We’re all very, very, very sorry” ... (Father Jack voice OFF)
They are all setting up Vennells, Van den Bogerd and a few others to be the fall guys for the whole sorry and criminal farrago, in the hope of saving their own necks by dint of feigned ignorance. Those at the bottom will claim they “were only obeying orders”. Leaving Vennells and a few others to be crushed in the vice. Oh dear, what a pity, how sad, never mind.
 
Last edited:
Tangerinemoss said:
Mrs Van Den Bogerd was told by the special investigator that Carl Page's prosecution was unsafe as there was no evidence he had stolen anything. The investgator believed it was an issue with FOREX that Horizon could only cope with Sterling. MRS VDB agreed it needed to be investigated and did nothing. Days later she sat in front of a commons enquiry with Vennells and denied there were any problems with Horizon.

ITV have the tape of the conversation.

It will only be perjury if the Oath has been administered
Click to expand...

Oaths are very rarely administered to witnesses at Parliamentary Select Committee hearings. The last time it happened was for the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal. However, lying to the select committee is contempt of Parliament which can fine and prosecute.

But I think they will leave that up to the police, CPS and the Old Bailey.
 
The only hope for Vennells and Van den Bogerd is to spread the blame and inference of criminality as widely as possible to implicate as many people as possible, especially upwards in the executive chain.

Then, if they are viewed as caught up in the “persecution culture” widespread within the PO, assuming they are prosecuted and found guilty, they might get similar sentences to all the others. If they are seen as the prime instigators, and directly rewarded with promotion and bonuses which can be shown to be motives, they will get the book thrown at them.

As they have seen from the evidence given by Crozier, Cook, Miller and Mills ... no-one else is going to protect them or say a word in their favour. They have been thrown to the wolves.

But will they refuse to answer questions for fear of self-incrimination?
 
Last edited:
Can't wait for the final outcome and see some of these morons in jail, where they belong.
Unfortunately it will go on and on for some time yet.
As an ex PO family I want to see these morons behind bars.
Me, Dad, Sister, 3 cousins, 2 uncles all worked Blackpool GPO.
Forgot, my 1st wife and I met when she worked at Marton PO
 
Last edited:
Another who apparently knew and did fuck all.

'I hope my evidence will assist this inquiry with getting to the answers you and so many others deserve. But I'm honestly a clueless ** who was stealing a wage honest.'

I really can't watch it, seen this type of thing too many times before in the NHS, senior managers take no responsibility ever, it makes me quite cross.
 
Last edited:
Just tuned in for a bit after reading this thread, the lawyer is absolutely fantastic to watch and i am sure there will be a "gotcha" moment soon reminiscent of when The Scooby gang reveal the baddie in their cartoons....
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Another who apparently knew and did fuck all.

'I hope my evidence will assist this inquiry with getting to the answers you and so many others deserve. But I'm honestly a clueless ** who was stealing a wage honest.'

I really can't watch it, seen this type of thing too many times before in the NHS, senior managers take no responsibility ever, it makes me quite cross.
Click to expand...
Me too, but I cannot see anyway she will avoid prosecution.
 
In the Fujitsu trial at the High Court (2018) VDB said (under oath) that she only became aware of the suggestion that Fujitsu could remotely access PO branch accounts through Horizon, the previous year - ie. 2017. Jason Beer KC has, this morning, examined with VDB three items of e-mailed correspondence - dated Dec 2010, Jan 2011 and 2014 respectively - to which she was an addressee. In each e-mail there is discussion of Fujitsu's ability to access branch accounts through Horizon on-line. Beer asked VDB whether she had reviewed these documents as part of her preparation for her appearance at the High Court. She said that it hadn't been suggested to her that she might do that........Bullshit!
 
1966_and_all_that said:
In the Fujitsu trial at the High Court (2018) VDB said (under oath) that she only became aware of the suggestion that Fujitsu could remotely access PO branch accounts through Horizon, the previous year - ie. 2017. Jason Beer KC has, this morning, examined with VDB three items of e-mailed correspondence - dated Dec 2010, Jan 2011 and 2014 respectively - to which she was an addressee. In each e-mail there is discussion of Fujitsu's ability to access branch accounts through Horizon on-line. Beer asked VDB whether she had reviewed these documents as part of her preparation for her appearance at the High Court. She said that it hadn't been suggested to her that she might do that........Bullshit!
Click to expand...
She's been briefed to admit nothing.
 
Archibald Knox said:
These days management tap out quick emails to each other instead of talking face to face or using the phone as they would have done in the past. Which was usually unrecorded and so could not be used as strong undeniable evidence. It required witnesses’ memories.

And that’s the true beauty of email. Recorded in perpetuity for posterity. Every little detail forms the chain of who knew, said and did, what and when. For years afterwards. Glorious.

As long as the crooks don’t delete it all, but then again, that’s also an offence and a big gap in the record tells its own story. But there may be multiple back-ups. Given the whistle blowers, there’s also the good chance that some lower down will have archived their own email records for self-protection knowing the executive tendency for throwing underlings in front of the oncoming bus. So it makes lying in court, or to a public inquiry, very much more hazardous.
Click to expand...
Yet with covid, so many servers malfunctioned and deleted everything...

Course they did.
 
Lost Seasider said:
To be fair, I suspect most would have trouble recalling specific e-mails from 14 years ago out of likely thousands if not tens of thousands she would've received over the course of a year.
Click to expand...
Depends how serious the e mail was… I’m sure very important e mails would stick in my mind and would need to be acted on… she can’t remember any e mails that will incriminate her…
 
If we are to believe her this whole scandal had wheels of its own… nobody did anything or drove it… it just did it all itself without human input…🙄
 
Lost Seasider said:
To be fair, I suspect most would have trouble recalling specific e-mails from 14 years ago out of likely thousands if not tens of thousands she would've received over the course of a year.
Click to expand...
Yes, but she recalls those that suit. She’s also got this amazing highly paid role, but without any responsibility. She’s pointed the finger of responsibility at those above & below.

This is the ‘good cop’ examination, it’ll be total carnage once Counsel for the postmasters get their chance.
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
Yes, but she recalls those that suit. She’s also got this amazing highly paid role, but without any responsibility. She’s pointed the finger of responsibility at those above & below.

This is the ‘good cop’ examination, it’ll be total carnage once Counsel for the postmasters get their chance.
Click to expand...
lets hope so, absolutely gripping entertainment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top