Mr Bates versus the Post office.

Archibald Knox said:
As I understood, the “Clarke advice” was a review by an independent lawyer specifically advising against the shredding and disposal of internal PO documents, as had been instructed to be carried out after internal meetings, by the PO Head of Security.
Click to expand...
Think there’s two separate advices
The one I’ve read related to the reliability of Jenkins as an expert witness
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Think there’s two separate advices
The one I’ve read related to the reliability of Jenkins as an expert witness
Click to expand...
Yep, read them both last night following your posting. The first highighted the reliability of Jenkins. The PO were advised to maintain a Central hub of issues with the Horizon system. The second was in response to the lack of record and minute taking (effectively "shredding") that had been advised internally apparently as an m.o. to avoid disclosure. Clarke told them that is would be wrong amd would be illegal. The PO General Counsel told the Head of Security that minutes and records were needed. She (Crichton?) left soon after. The Head of Security said the lack of minutes was at her direction. Think they'll both be at risk of prosecution.

Those were in 2013 and it's astonishing that they continued to prosecute after that (although they soon stopped) and defended the postmasters' appeal so vigourously, several years later

Whatever they got wrong up to 2013, the Clarke advice should have been the trigger to stop, and put their hands up to unsafe convictions. Unfortunately, it seemed to spur them on to dig deeper
 
Last edited:
I would love to see a figure for the cash that they got from those prosecuted and threatend with prosecution. Was it enough that that alone was the motive for continuing?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I would love to see a figure for the cash that they got from those prosecuted and threatend with prosecution. Was it enough that that alone was the motive for continuing?
Click to expand...
All went into PO profits. Today's news is that money set aside for compensation was left out of the Corporation Tax assessment, so they owe us millions on that as well.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I would love to see a figure for the cash that they got from those prosecuted and threatend with prosecution. Was it enough that that alone was the motive for continuing?
Click to expand...
Well, bonuses were based on succcessful prosecutions and the money recovered from the postmasters went into a suspense account which was subsequently transferrred into the POs profit and loss account. The level of profits determined other elements of bonus to managers!

And in another twist, the subsequent compensation that has already been paid to postmasters was treated as tax deductable from the profit and loss account. HMRC are looking at that, because such a deduction for compensation payment for fines is not allowed. To make matters worse, when calculating the profit figure for bonus, they did not deduct the compensation payments in the calculation!
 
Last edited:
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I would love to see a figure for the cash that they got from those prosecuted and threatend with prosecution. Was it enough that that alone was the motive for continuing?
Click to expand...
I watched a you tube video yesterday where one of the victims claimrd the bonuses paid to the investigators calculated as a percentage of the amount recovered - and a rather large one @40%
Can't believe that's right but who knows in this sorry saga
 
If you read about the Blackpool guy above I bet there are hundreds we don’t know about because they dealt with it themselves like this.

It’s truly shocking.

The subpostmaster in Layton ( the old post office corner shop ) went under some kind of disgraced cloud a few years back. Wonder if he was caught up in this whole mess.
 
Indeed

The Inquiry has been interesting as one of the test cases is the Cleveleys Sub-Post Master where proceedings were conducted in the Blackpool County Court
 
So what we have learnt about the PO, who we own, is that their senior management lies or doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, their legal team wouldn’t know the law on disclosure if it jumped up and bit them on the backside, and their tax lawyers don’t know tax law. About time the whole thing was taken over by an entirely new team and spring cleaned.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I think this is the crux of the matter, they gave enormous power and responsibility to people who are, not to put too fine a point on it, total f***ing retards.
Click to expand...
Let's just hope that more heads will roll.
Also, as I said earlier on this thread, will Fennells give back the £400,000 bonus she received?
 
Last edited:
Tangerinemoss said:
So what we have learnt about the PO, who we own, is that their senior management lies or doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, their legal team wouldn’t know the law on disclosure if it jumped up and bit them on the backside, and their tax lawyers don’t know tax law. About time the whole thing was taken over by an entirely new team and spring cleaned.
Click to expand...
I think that's being claimed in the Inquiry. Not sure I believe everything that's been said there.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
So what we have learnt about the PO, who we own, is that their senior management lies or doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, their legal team wouldn’t know the law on disclosure if it jumped up and bit them on the backside, and their tax lawyers don’t know tax law. About time the whole thing was taken over by an entirely new team and spring cleaned.
Click to expand...
And investigators jump to conclusions and don't investigate their own issues eg horizon reliability
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Indeed

The Inquiry has been interesting as one of the test cases is the Cleveleys Sub-Post Master where proceedings were conducted in the Blackpool County Court
Click to expand...
The evidence given by her boss could be summarised as 'I know nothing!' She even claimed no knowledge of what she had put in and had excluded from her witness statement or that she was aware the postmistress had been prosecuted.
 
THE great post office scandal is on Radio 4 at 12 .30 am this week. the journalist who presents it has been covering this for some time. Worth a listen.
 
I've mentioned this before, but, I don't see them telling Fernells to return the £400,000 she received as a pay-off.
Why hasn't it been brought out into the open?
 
There is no legal mechanism to do that other than shame her or introduce legislation that would run a coach and horses through centuries of contract law
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
There is no legal mechanism to do that other than shame her or introduce legislation that would run a coach and horses through centuries of contract law
Click to expand...
There could be a mechanism if it could be shown it (and other bonuses) were funded from the money fraudulently obtained from from the SPMs.
 
That would depend on a criminal conviction and a Proceeds of Crime application

Not sure that would stick but who knows what's still to be revealed

The Inquiry is fascinating
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
That would depend on a criminal conviction and a Proceeds of Crime application

Not sure that would stick but who knows what's still to be revealed

The Inquiry is fascinating
Click to expand...
It's very fascinating and I'd happily watch the live coverage regularly. It's quite shocking how many times we hear "i can't recall" or "I would have expected senior management to tell us about that"
 
Delfino said:
It's very fascinating and I'd happily watch the live coverage regularly. It's quite shocking how many times we hear "i can't recall" or "I would have expected senior management to tell us about that"
Click to expand...
If you search in You Tube and subscribe it then suggests them when new ones added
 
It would be good to watch today's session with the Fujitsu CEO. Just reading the BBC summary instead.

CEO has said that some Fujitsu witness statements for the prosecution cases were edited to remove references to errors and data integrity.

Think there’s going to be a lot of people in trouble....
 
Fujitsu were one of the original four prime contractors for the National Programme for IT (NHS system) one of the biggest ever IT [FILTERS ON] f***ups [FILTERS OFF] ever. They later tried to agree a contract reset with the Department of Health and Social Care who then cancelled their contract. Fujitsu then sued the DHSC for £700m - which was a ridiculously large slice of the £896m it stood to get had they actually completed the project. A ten year protracted legal battle followed ending in the DHSC having to pay Fujitsu £628m added to the cost of the DHSC's £31.5m legal bill.

The whole project was a disaster pretty much from day one and cost an absolute fortune but a lot of companies and individuals did very nicely out of it despite delivering next to naff all. One of those was the saintly Patrick Cryne who 'ran' iSoft and had some spare cash to spend on Barnsley FC - nice to know our taxes effectively helped fund a rival club.

Like Horizon non of the departments or companies involved exactly covered themselves in glory but the Horizon cover up and the sacrifice of innocents as part of that cover up is on a whole different level.

Still can’t get my head round why they claimed they didn’t have remote access to correct/screw up data and why anyone vaguely involved would accept the claim. Of course they did and such an obvious untruth. The only way immediate way to fix some faults is by amending data and until you know the root cause it’s pretty much often the only way – how you document and how transparent you are with them is a different matter.
 
Another f***wit of the highest order on show at the inquiry today, I'll leave you to find your own preferred links, but this one is truly "special".
 
Binge watched the TV series yesterday, brilliant if disturbing viewing.
I've implemented numerous software systems, albeit none as big as this, and 2 of the key stages are
1. TEST TEST AND TEST AGAIN
2. Post go live support, bug fixing etc

Whoever was the IT manager for this implementation should be sacked. Incredible cover up.
 
Hertsseasider said:
Binge watched the TV series yesterday, brilliant if disturbing viewing.
I've implemented numerous software systems, albeit none as big as this, and 2 of the key stages are
1. TEST TEST AND TEST AGAIN
2. Post go live support, bug fixing etc

Whoever was the IT manager for this implementation should be sacked. Incredible cover up.
Click to expand...
The TV drama only tells part of the story. The evidence to the public enquiry is even more shocking, not least the number of witnesses who try to swerve responsibility, blame others or have a memory loss. And the evidence presented shows they knew the truth at the time.
If you want to watch an unbelievable witness performance, watch the evidence of post office manager, Elaine Cottam, to the post office public enquiry (you can watch on YouTube). She was responsible for the prosecution and sacking of the Cleveleys postmistress.
 
bfcpete said:
The TV drama only tells part of the story. The evidence to the public enquiry is even more shocking, not least the number of witnesses who try to swerve responsibility, blame others or have a memory loss. And the evidence presented shows they knew the truth at the time.
If you want to watch an unbelievable witness performance, watch the evidence of post office manager, Elaine Cottam, to the post office public enquiry (you can watch on YouTube). She was responsible for the prosecution and sacking of the Cleveleys postmistress.
Click to expand...
Just watched the Elaine Cottam performance… Staggering… I’m surprised she remembers her own name… Thick as Sh*t… The KC was exasperated with her…
 
bfcpete said:
The TV drama only tells part of the story. The evidence to the public enquiry is even more shocking, not least the number of witnesses who try to swerve responsibility, blame others or have a memory loss. And the evidence presented shows they knew the truth at the time.
If you want to watch an unbelievable witness performance, watch the evidence of post office manager, Elaine Cottam, to the post office public enquiry (you can watch on YouTube). She was responsible for the prosecution and sacking of the Cleveleys postmistress.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know the Cleveleys post office was involved
 
Just seen the BBC article about how the Post Office tried to stop the investigation by the independent auditors in 2014. The documents provided were so heavily redacted it made them useless. This can only be sanctioned at the top. The sooner Vennels and her senior management face a criminal trial the better. These people should not be free to enjoy the luxurious of their lives which they obtained through their mis management
 

‘I told Blair to cancel Horizon in 1998 – I could see it was unreliable’ (Telegraph).​


For the hundreds of victims of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, a recently-unearthed memo from 1998 must be almost too painful to read.

The then Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair, was warned that Horizon was “flawed” and that an “unsatisfactory” deal with suppliers Fujitsu would leave the government “dependent on a hugely expensive, inflexible, inappropriate and possibly unreliable system”. Fatefully, Blair went ahead with Horizon anyway, and we all know what came next.

The man who wrote that memo, Sir Geoff Mulgan, is now helping Sir Keir Starmer to prepare for government, and the Labour leader would do well to listen to him. Mulgan worries that political leaders still have too little grip on science and technology, and that mistakes like Horizon are still happening around the world.

“I did recommend cancelling it,” he says of Horizon, “and then tried to look at some of the lessons to be learnt – there was a gap in capability in the British Government of people with an understanding of technology.

“The Government’s very strong on finance, especially the Treasury, obviously strong on things like law, but I was often the only person in throom who had any tech background. And I was definitely not a deep expert on Horizon-type projects, but even I could see that it was unreliable, likely to go wrong.

“These were monstrously big projects, which didn’t involve the users at all in the design process. Even the Post Office management didn’t get to see the software. Blair, to his credit, did at least, say ‘surely we need a reassurance that the technology will work’. He was given that reassurance by the then Department of Trade and Industry. So he asked the right question, but didn’t get the right answer from the system.”

Mulgan reacted “with horror” as the Post Office scandal unfolded over the course of 20 years, adding: “I think this is a topic where guilt is very widely shared. Certainly people from all the political parties made wrong decisions at certain points. The Government machine should also be held to account. The Civil Service got this wrong.

“For me, the crucial thing is not just that justice has to be done, but the right lessons are learnt. And I’m still not quite sure that process is yet happening. Because we will probably be in a blame festival rather than lesson learning. The same applies to the Covid Inquiry.”

Mulgan, 62, is the sort of person who seems to have lived a dozen lives in the time it has taken the rest of us to live one. In his various incarnations, he has been a trainee Buddhist monk, a roadie, an encyclopaedia salesman, a BBC reporter, a local government official, an author, a PhD student, a lecturer, a think-tank director, a Downing Street adviser and more.

He is currently a professor of collective intelligence, public policy and social innovation at University College London, and he advises governments all over the world as a sort of freelance problem solver. After he founded the cross-party think-tank Demos in 1993, his counsel was sought by Blair, Sir John Major, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Boris Johnson.

With Starmer on a seemingly unstoppable path to power, he may need all the help Mulgan can give him.

For the full transcript you will have to sign on.
 
basilexile said:
If a number of people do not do serious jail time, then these scandals will continue. Until public servants realise the implications of 'doing nothing when they see wrong doing,' then nothing will change.
Click to expand...
Fujitsu aren't public servants. They knew their software was malfunctioning from the off and indeed, were manually adjusting live data. No one blew the whistle there until many years down the line.
 
Cuthbert said:
Just seen the BBC article about how the Post Office tried to stop the investigation by the independent auditors in 2014. The documents provided were so heavily redacted it made them useless. This can only be sanctioned at the top. The sooner Vennels and her senior management face a criminal trial the better. These people should not be free to enjoy the luxurious of their lives which they obtained through their mis management
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Post Office plan to sack Horizon IT reviewer kept secret, documents reveal

Records also show managers planned to pay only a "token" sum as part of "mediation" to deal with victims.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Wizaard said:
Fujitsu aren't public servants. They knew their software was malfunctioning from the off and indeed, were manually adjusting live data. No one blew the whistle there until many years down the line.
Click to expand...
Just like the Post office are. Those that knew were too scared to do the right thing, or just corrupt.
Your defence of ex colleagues (public servants,) is admirable, but two wrongs do not make a right. Stating that Fujitsu are not public servants is rather trying to cloud the issue.
 
basilexile said:
Just like the Post office are. Those that knew were too scared to do the right thing, or just corrupt.
Your defence of ex colleagues (public servants,) is admirable, but two wrongs do not make a right. Stating that Fujitsu are not public servants is rather trying to cloud the issue.
Click to expand...
I think the bulk of the culpability lies with the post office, particularly their cover up of issues, failure to disclose and continuing to prosecute when they should have stopped.

Fujitsu will be culpable too. Ignore the system delivery, that they stood witnesses up who may have committed perjury.
 
Watch Jason Beer's (KC) 2hr interview of Elaine Cottam (Retail Line Mgr for PO) responsible for over 100 PO's in the North West, including Cleveleys.

A masterclass in forensically destroying a witnesses credibility 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top