Anybody know much about this?
Reading about it this morning it seems a large number of sub postmasters have been accused and/or tried and/or convicted and/or imprisoned over alleged theft of financial mis management and are now being 'cleared'.
My wonderings being;
Is it being said that they didn't actually do it, or just that their convictions are not safe?
It seems that the Horizon IT System said that there were signifi9cant cash shortages. In order to cause such a perception presumably the system had to say that goods or services had been supplied for which there was no corresponding cash? Pretty simple to disprove I would have thought.
What number of sub postmasters are prosecuted each year? Was this part of a massive increase?
I presume some of you must know rather more about this than I do.
|
Wiki isn't always the most reliable of sources, but
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
...provides a decent summary.
|
Private Eye have been covering it for years, since way before the PO ever acknowledged there may be a problem. The PO denied for many years that the system could be faulty then as I recall one of the system engineers said it was flawed.
The PO tried to wriggle out of it on many occasions but in general the courts didn't support them.
Even at a very late stage the PO tried to strike out the whole action by claiming the judge was biased, or something like that.
Here is the Eye's special on it, with lots of detail.
www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justice-lost-in-the-post.pdf
EDIT: From Paula Vennells wikipedia page
"Paula Anne Vennells, CBE (born 1959), is a British businesswoman and Anglican priest. She was chief executive officer (CEO) of the Post Office Limited from 2012 to 2019. Under her leadership, the Post Office prosecuted hundreds of subpostmasters for fraud, despite knowing that the financial discrepancies were actually arising from computer errors for which her own company was responsible."
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 19 Jul 21 at 15:58
|
>>Here is the Eye's special on it, with lots of detail.
>>
>>www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justice-lost-in-the-post.pdf
Unbelievable. Utterly shocking. There should be significant repercussions.
|
The system was built & run by Fujitsu.
It was not goods that "disappeared" but phantom money.
Post Offices used to receive mountains of cash daily to pay Pensions, family allowance etc etc
e.g
Postmaster receives £20K - enters £20K in cash received - computer hangs and does not show the receipt of £20K so he hits submit again. This time it shows up & he is happy.
What he did not see was that 2 x£20K showed on the Horizon system as being received.
Other failures were back doors - Fujitsu staff with logons could enter the live system and make/delete entries. This should have been banned but they would try things live rather than test systems.
Post Office chased the "debts" Civil courts prosecuted by Post Office lawyers jailed something near 500 people, peple lost their homes, jobs, wives/husbands and did years inside. Fujitsu said the system did not lie, PO prosecutors did not even question why 10% of their sub posties were dishonest.
Cover-up and more prosecutions when the PO Board & CEO knew there were holes and innocent people lost everything.
This has legs and Fujitsu & PO Senior staff could be jailed for knowing the flaws and perjuring themselves as the gave evidence knowing it to be false.
|
>> Anybody know much about this?
No personal knowledge but it's a scandalous miscarriage of justice.
Basically the Horizon system was unreliable. The Post Office must have known but refused to acknowledge the fact. Instead people were prosecuted, often jailed and ruined. A number pleaded quilty to less serious offences as they were offered plea bargain type deals.
The Court's judgement on the first tranche of appeals is here:
www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hamilton-others-v-post-office-limited/
In the majority of cases they're evidently honest people caught in a trap. A handful of appellants had their convictions confirmed; they looked like chancing hangers on.
Prior to that there was incredibly bitterly fought Civil Litigation under the generic title Bates and Others v the Post Office. The PO stopped at nothing including trying to get the Judge discharged. He, the judge, was utterly scathing of aspects of the Post Office's evidence.
You could lose a day immersed in the detail.
BBC Radio 4 has a well regarded series of 15 minute programmes:
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000jf7j
|
It was known in the IT trade that the system was a bag of worms, insider rumours was coming out of Fujitsu for years, and the 100% denial of any possibility that the system could cock up in any was considered implausible given the known poor journaling and crap comms of the system.
Its probably the biggest scandal since we sent convicts to Australia.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 19 Jul 21 at 16:53
|
>> It was known in the IT trade that the system was a bag of worms,
>> insider rumours was coming out of Fujitsu for years, and the 100% denial of any
>> possibility that the system could cock up in any was considered implausible given the known
>> poor journaling and crap comms of the system.
I worked briefly at ICL, a singularly unimpressive company which seemed to mess up most things that it touched. They always seemed like the British Leyland of computer systems.
|
>>always seemed like the British Leyland of computer systems
The difference was nobody was jailed for buying/running a BL car.
Mind you some of the senior management could be jailed for selling, in some cases, dangerous cars - eg First Marinas were lethal in the wet.
|
>> I worked briefly at ICL, a singularly unimpressive company which seemed to mess up most
>> things that it touched. They always seemed like the British Leyland of computer systems.
It was an ICL developed solution
|
Thank you, I'll go through them in detail later.
All somewhat shocking though - prosecuting people for stealing money which wasn't actually missing.
|
Catching up on my Private Eye reading this afternoon I came across a bit of an update in the 25 June issue.
Boris made a statement that he'd seen "first hand the irreparable impact it has had on their lives" and "we must stand with postmasters to get to the bottom of what went wrong" as the inquiry was put on a statutory basis (hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-05-19/debates/4CF2C689-04D9-40E1-A709-5E8EBD76F11D/PostOfficeUpdate ).
However the Eye says "despite owing this group so much, the inquiry specifically excludes consideration of their settlement". It goes on to say that of the £58m the PO agreed to pay, £46m went in legal and funding costs that the ex-postmasters should never have had to bear, leaving the "and average £20000 and grossly out of pocket given their lost livelihoods (and worse)". (There was at least one whose suicide was suspected of being triggered by being falsely accused.)
I agree this one is far from over.
btw the Lookalike at the bottom of the Eye webpage made me laugh www.private-eye.co.uk/
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 19 Jul 21 at 17:42
|
There were allegations that Fujitsu's IT staff were ordered to make changes to account (transactions) with transactions not entered by the postmasters, effectively falsifying evidence against the postmaster. Denied by PO and Fujitsu.
What is sad is that some postmasters have committed suicide on the back of these cases or have died before justice has been received.
|
|
I'm acquainted with one of its victims. He lost everything and went to clink. Decent bloke, now in employment thanks to a local company who know him. Private Eye's coverage was first class, and hopefully had a hand in the subsequent events. I hope the bosses get crucified.
|
>> I hope the bosses get crucified.
>>
Lying in court that there were no known bugs!
They should be gaoled.
|
Back in my Safeway days we had a post office.
Ran the horizon system.
Can’t remember which day of the week our subpostmaster ran the weekly audit, was either Tuesday wed or Thursday but it never ever balanced.
We spent hours on it every week and then would eventually release the account with an overage or shortage. It never balanced.
Many of the “findings” now make sense!
|
>> www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hamilton-others-v-post-office-limited/
I read the whole thing. Clearly a very thorough job.
But Christ alive, how did something like this happen? Lives have been ruined and in some cases shortened. Each of us gets one life and The Post Office has destroyed many, at best with negligence , but seemingly with intent and disregard for anything other than their own a***s.
Those responsible should be sought and prosecuted. And that includes Paula Vennells the then CEO who was happy to accept the CBE "for services to the Post Office and to charity". If she was happy to be rewarded when it appeared to have gone well, then she should be equally happy to be punished now it has become clear it did not.
It is also inconceivable that a CEO would not be aware and regularly reported to when legal procedures are under way.
Whilst money cannot repay the harm that has been done, these poor people should be heavily compensated and the money, at least partially, should be recovered from those responsible both in the PO and ICL/Fujitsu.
I've never read anything like it. Scandalous.
The names of all the managers, lawyers, directors, investigators, advisors and others involved should be published and they should be dismissed, punished and shamed, just as they did to their victims.
|
>> The names of all the managers, lawyers, directors, investigators, advisors and others involved should be published and they should be dismissed, punished and shamed, just as they did to their
>> victims.
Apart from the odd sacrificial lamb as far down the chain as they can get away with, they won't of course, the Post office being part of the Great British Establishment.
A mate of mine runs one of the local post offices, and being an ex merchant banker he is pretty savvy when it comes to finances and he noticed it wasn't right from day 1. Some months he was down and others he was up so he kept a close eye on it in case it started to get out of hand when he'd have pulled the plug. His constant complaints led to the all too familiar "It must be you. no one else is having problems".
If someone had written a novel with the same storyline it would be dismissed as a ridiculous scenario.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Jul 21 at 20:03
|
Say 1,000 victims - multiply that by family members affected as they were likely to be 99% family businesses - say 3/4 family members per prosecution.
That's 3,000 to 4,000 that have been gravely affected - reputations lost, many jailed, homes sold, families broken up, little chance of employment with a fraud conviction
Possibly the BIGGEST ever Miscarriage of the Law and until fairly recently the PO & Fujitsu denied it was their fault with dodgy software & malicious prosecutions.
They will get a day in court, and barring a few fraudsters, they will recive some compensation BUT the first tranche saw 3/4 of the awards disappear in legal costs. Surely the PO/Fujitsu should pay costs as they were guilty of malicious prosecutions.
|
>> They will get a day in court, and barring a few fraudsters, they will recive
>> some compensation BUT the first tranche saw 3/4 of the awards disappear in legal costs.
>> Surely the PO/Fujitsu should pay costs as they were guilty of malicious prosecutions.
I think the cases that cost a lot were the civil action under the title Bates and Ors v Post Office which was settled.
The PO were incredibly aggressive in that case and it's arguable it should be revisited in the light of what's coming out now.
|
>>That's 3,000 to 4,000 that have been gravely affected -
To the extreme. Lives have been lost, relationships broken, families damaged, reputations, happiness etc. etc. etc. all because of a rubbish IT project that the management didn't have the decency or the balls to add up to.
The PO should fund a massive PR campaign so that everybody in every village or town knows that these people were innocent and mistreated. It should include details of what did go wrong, what was done wrongly, and it should have the PO logo all over it.
The ex-CEO should lose her CBE. Any bonuses paid in that time to any C**, director, manager or supervisor who was involved in this should be recovered.
Fujitsu should be heavily penalised and the money used for the victims.
All costs should be recovered from the PO & Fujitsu.
And anything else that can be done, should be done.
|
Sorry if this has been mentioned but wasn't the person in charge at the PO at the time a lady who then became some thing big some where else within Govt or a company (sorry can't remember details), I'm sure after the first over-turns were confirmed she resigned before being pushed??
|
>> Sorry if this has been mentioned but wasn't the person in charge at the PO
>> at the time a lady who then became some thing big some where else within
>> Govt or a company (sorry can't remember details), I'm sure after the first over-turns were
>> confirmed she resigned before being pushed??
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells
|
I've been following the story for years. The sheer volume of 'fraud' and the numbers of sub-postmasters screaming their innocence needed explanation. There was undoubtedly a cover up, with Fujitsu and the PO saying that the cash shortages couldn't be explained by a software problem at a time when it was known that there were serious problems with Horizon.
It's not accidental or even negligent, it's criminal. Keeping bad news under wraps is one thing, knowingly prosecuting innocent people is another.
|
Just hit the Beeb - "Sub-postmasters wrongly convicted of offences in a Post Office IT scandal will get interim compensation of up to £100,000, the government has said."
www.bbc.com/news/business-57928397
They must be as afeared of Mark's wrath as the rest of us are :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 22 Jul 21 at 14:43
|
>> "Sub-postmasters wrongly convicted of offences in a Post Office IT scandal will get interim compensation of up to £100,000, the government has said."
I'm sure the dead people will be thrilled. And no doubt those who lost many years of their life, their social standing, their relationships, their retirement, their peace of mind, and their family will be dancing in the streets in joy.
Aside from a great deal more money, a huge amount of reputation rebuilding publicity for each one, and any other help that can be given, I am sure they would like to see the list of Fujitsu and PO that will be going to prison for this. As well as the larger list of people who will be dismissed and the very much smaller list of all those ex-Post Office CEOs who will have their CBEs removed and their bonuses recovered shortly before being removed as an Anglican Priest - on that last my feelings have been made clear to parts of the Sky Fairy's hierarchy in the UK. Now if a bunch of other people could do the same, maybe it'll have some effect.
That's what I would like to see.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 22 Jul 21 at 15:03
|
>> Just hit the Beeb - "Sub-postmasters wrongly convicted of offences in a Post Office IT
>> scandal will get interim compensation of up to £100,000, the government has said."
>>
In some of these cases, I doubt £100k will even "touch the sides" of what these people have lost, both in monetary, physical and emotional terms.
|
>>It's not accidental or even negligent, it's criminal.
Yes it is, and it should be dealt with that way.
|
I heard all of this about 3 or 4 years ago. A devastating story about a lady, Seema Misra, sent down while still pregnant for theft and false accounting or whatever they charged her with.
Not only that but it was her (or possible several others) who was borrowing heavily from banks, family and friends just to get the balances right. The kind of person who would do anything to do the right thing but nevertheless jailed.
Find them, prosecute them and nail them to the wall. I hope the Seema Misras are monumentally well compensated.
|
Any spokesperson for the Post Office who comes out with the phrase "Lessons have been learned" should be dropped into a barrel full of starving rats, then kicked senseless if they manage to climb out.
Every week for the rest of their lives.
|
I see the Post Office haven't given up completely.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58170897
I suppose it is conceivable that they believe these are genuine fraud cases but they'll be on the back foot throughout I'd have thought.
|
I think the appeals that succeeded were those cases where prosecution had relied on the IT system being accurate.
Those cases which did not, logically, failed since the conviction was deemed to be safe.
You'd have to assume that they are not being stupid in resisting some appeals.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 13 Aug 21 at 03:32
|
I am sure there will be the odd cases where the sub-postmaster was stealing money.
However, there were some 700 people prosecuted - jailed, made bankrupt, divorces, loss of reputation ............. the list is very long and broke down many peoples lives.
The Post Office has so far spent some £160m defending the indefensible - their system was poor, had known holes and knowing this they still prosecuted innocent people for what sometimes were "small amounts".
Would it not be easier and cheaper i.e. less in legal fees, court time and drawing a line - the Government will pay up some £500m - estimates I have seen in articles.
In my mind if a few guilty people get off so what- happens in every court every day.
|
>> I am sure there will be the odd cases where the sub-postmaster was stealing money.
The first tranche of cases in the Court of Criminal Appeal (judgment liked upthread) included a handful that were contested and rejected. There will be more.
One has to assume that a number of genuine fraudsters are trying it on on the coat tails of those genuinely wrongly convicted.
|
Throw the towel in - pay out everyone and then bring the whole matter to a close.
People have died waiting many years for their innocence to be agreed and compensation paid.
If some thieves escape so what - the 650+ should be the concern of PO & Government - lining the pockets of more lawyers is not important.
|
|
Well they are not going to be able to use Horizon as a source of reliable evidence.
|
|
Seems incredible that no one at the top stopped to think, why have we got so many thieves working for the post office?
|
The Police & Lord Advocate (Chief Legal Officer and head of Prosecution Service) have paid out around £27m in damages for malicious prosecution of 3 people.
Rangers FC went bust
The new Chairman of "Rangers Mark 2" & 2 of the Liquidators were arrested, appeared in court on charges but it never went much further but the saga dragged on for years - damaging the reputations of 3 people. In the last 12 months they have been awarded damages of £27M.
Contrast that with the malicious prosecution by PO lawyers x 700 cases and perjury by witnesses - people bankrupted, jailed, died when there was no fault by the sub-postmaster - much of the "stolen money" never physically existed other than on the Horizon system
PO now admits blame but so far £12m paid out to around 50 people (£45m went on legal fees) only around 650 to go and still the PO drags its feet.
|
>>PO now admits blame...
It seems far easier to prosecute the "little people" who have limited resources to fight their corner.
I understand that the Post Office actually ran the prosecutions (perhaps our resident legal experts can confirm if I have this right). So it seems they were accuser and prosecutor.
As to the number of prosecutions not ringing alarm bells. I wonder if management at the Post Office thought, wow, Horizon is amazing, it's finding all these frauds that we didn't know about, rather than thinking, oh, there might be a lot of false positives here.
I have had fraud cases with my job at work, where directors of a business clearly manipulate and lie to gain financial advantage. We report each one. There has never been a prosecution on my or my other members of my team's portfolios.
The biggest was a company that clearly defrauded the NHS out of millions. Basically some medicines needed to be "hand made to order". Not particularly complex stuff.
The manufacturer would charge the pharmacy say £1,000 for the medicine. The pharmacy would charge the NHS £1,100. The manufacturer would then refund £900 to the pharmacy who would then pay £500 to the manufacturer (sharing the gain). I.e. the medicine should have cost say £100.
We notified the authorities. Presented the evidence but nothing happened. We immediately recalled all loans and put the manufacturer in to administration. The manufacturing side was purchased by a medicines conglomerate.
(BTW all fraud cases are checked by a team of retired detectives to ensure we have got it right.)
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 13 Aug 21 at 20:28
|
"I understand that the Post Office actually ran the prosecutions (perhaps our resident legal experts can confirm if I have this right). So it seems they were accuser and prosecutor."
As I understand it these were private prosecutions which anyone can bring about. As such they bypassed the normal route of investigation and prosecution via the Police and CPS. That's not to say bodies are not capable of investigating and presenting case to the CPS for prosecution.
However bypassing the CPS also bypasses their Full Code Test which is 2 parts - The Evidential Test and the Public Interest Test. This may have raised alarm bells.
Instead they arrogantly ploughed ahead. They were the Victim, Investigator and Prosecutor.
|
The post office investigations branch is actually older than most police forces, and by history has had more or less a free hand to operate as investigators and prosecutors aided by this little gem
www.computerweekly.com/news/252495079/IT-scandal-exposes-legal-rule-that-made-it-easy-for-Post-Office-to-prosecute-the-innocent
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 13 Aug 21 at 23:36
|
>>The new rule introduced in 1999 followed a Law Commission recommendation for courts to
>>presume that a computer system has operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the
>>contrary.
If the logic is wrong you have issues. But the data can also be wrong and lead to "garbage in garbage out".
For years our base rates were wrong for currency loans, only by a few points but an error that compounds.
I produced tables of millions of records showing the errors and where these were in the client's favour we corrected them.
Pull a statement of account from the system before the correction and it would show the client owed far more than they actually did. Under this rule we could have easily sued on this information.
And now I realise why one of our independent rivals has been so successful at claiming against guarantors in court (they use the same system).
|
>If the logic is wrong you have issues.
There are various reasons why computerised information can be incorrect (remember Pentium FDIV?) but the worrying aspect is the court's presumtion that the computer is fundamentally always right and, even worse, that the defence were not allowed full discovery.
If the victim's lawyers had been able to demand that Fujitsu and the PO provide them with all the helpdesk records, bug reports and version control information I doubt that this case would have even got out of the starting blocks.
|
Duff & Phelps the company that liquidated Rangers FC Mark 1 and the employer of the 2 liquidators (who got £21m) are looking to sue the Scottish Police & Lord Advocate for the detriment caused to their company's reputation.
D&F are a US company and I would suggest that the smell money.
In a news article I read today, which may or may not be accurate, the 2 liquidators offered to settle for £2m (TWO million) back in 2018.
The Police & Lord Advocate refused the offer & managed to argue their case and then paid out £21m + further costs for the outside legal advice etc on top.
|
|
Aside from being completely confused about the relevance of some Scotch football club, I see no reason why safe convictions should be quashed.
|
>>confused about the relevance of some Scotch football club
Malicious prosecution of up to 700 sub postmasters leading to jail, bankruptcy, divorce, loss of reputation over some 15+ years. Only 50 postmasters so far received an average of £200K each and Post Office dragging their feet - so far no prosecutions of PO or Fujitsu staff for perjury.
Malicious prosecution by Police & Prosecution Service of 2 x Rangers liquidators resolved in a few years with £21m damages and £6m for Chairman of Rangers Mk2 for similar malicious charges.
Whilst the ordinary man/woman postmaster is suffering the cavalry rides to 3 people in the upper echelons of accountancy & business.
|
The Post Office Scandal is on Panorama tonight 20:00 BBC1. Catch-up services should be available.
It seems that Fujitsu were able to change accounting records remotely, something that was denied by the Post Office at the time.
If I changed a customer's accounts at work I could be charged with computer misuse, potential fraud and if it related to a criminal case, perverting the course of justice. It would be lovely to see similar charges levied that the Post Office.
|
The Solicitors Regulation Authority are now a core participant. Professional discipline my get some of them if PCoJ does not:
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-granted-access-to-more-post-office-documents/5112289.article?
|
Knowing & admitting the holes in the Horizon system has a long way to go - 2010 internal lawyers knowing the prosecutions were based on dodgy evidence they ploughed on for another 4+ years at a rate of 1 per week! The "Fujitsu experts" in court said the system was solid and reliable.
What the did not say was Fujitsu had "back door access" to each & every sub Post Office accounts - they could, and did, enter or delete data without the permission / knowledge of the Postmaster.
According to Panorama they ploughed on as there was a need /desire to sell off the PO. The Horizon system was losing £1m / week in the processing - not necessarily "real money" as the software was so unreliable.
Paula Vennels the CEO & other Senior people knew of the holes and just carried on - hoping matters would improve for them. The internal PO investigation group setup a forensic investigation, from External Accountants, into individual post offices where there had been prosecutions. Just before the forensic accountants were due to published their findings the PO working group cancelled the contract. The findings were known but never revealed.
This has a long way to run for the PO & the Government - up to £1Billion in damages for false imprisonment, breakdown of families, families homeless, divorce, suicides, bankruptcies might not be enough. Malicious prosecutions and jailing of people when the PO & Fujitsu knew the failures of Horizon will increase the damages claims dramatically.
|
The sad thing is that Private Eye were on the case many years before anything reached the mainstream, and IMO it was their dogged investigation and regular reporting on it which uncovered the scandal, but still nothing was done for many years, and the Post Office continued to persecute staff knowing full well that their systems were suspect.
Wikipedia says "In March 2015, Private Eye magazine and other sources reported that Post Office Ltd had ordered Second Sight to end their investigation just one day before the report was due to be published, and to destroy all the paperwork which they had not handed over. Post Office Ltd then scuppered the independent committee set up to oversee the investigation, as well as the mediation scheme for SPMs, and published a report which cleared themselves of any wrongdoing. Of the 136 cases, 56 had been closed, and Post Office Ltd would put the rest forward for "mediation" unless a court ruling prevented them from doing so. After ending the inquiry, Post Office Ltd said that there were no wide-scale problems, and that "This has been an exhaustive and informative process that has confirmed that there are no system-wide problems with our computer system and associated processes. We will now look to resolve the final outstanding cases as quickly as possible."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
The Post Office acted disgustingly and Paula Vennells and other senior execs should be in court over the way this was handled. They apparently have at least one suicide on their hands.
|
What a mess. I hope senior heads roll.
I first had to deal, as an internal customer, with a poorly designed and implemented stores system back in the early 1960s. Management were frightened to challenge the new wizards with computers.
I changed companies and in the mid 1960s became a computer programmer on large commercial "real time" machines .
I discovered that the machine did not execute some of the instructions I had programmed.
Thereafter I was always wary on possible errors.
Several years later we found a sequence of events that caused a non critical back up glitch.
A week before we closed the machine down I with my team spent a week investigating a strange list of "new" data reports from rehearsal runs. Just in time we widened our investigation and discovered that at the time of the data run the mainframe was swapped as it was found to be faulty.
As we should all know it is so difficult to test properly so I am always wary of " the computer is always right"
|
If Vennells and any other board members knew, or should have known, that they were prosecuting innocent people than they should be in prison. The same goes for the management of Fujitsu.
I've been reading about this in Private Eye for years. Something like 800 sub-postmasters didn't suddenly decide to start stealing tens of thousands of pounds.
Incredibly this is still on a Fujitsu website
www.fujitsu.com/downloads/SVC/fs/casestudies/uk-postoffice2.pdf
|
What about the (current) elephant in the room, PO/Fujitsu Horizon?
Was it a case of users making simple mistakes, or a corporate negligence? A large proportion of users seem to be affected, but not all the 11K sub Post offices?
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:27
|
|
All of us in the IT game new that Horizon was a pile of excrement at a very early age, much gossip in the trade from role out phase. It happens in any IT project, what doesent happen is a refusal to accept issues and make end users pay for it, and then obfuscate the facts to try and cover it up. Thats the real crime, not the IT.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:27
|
>>Horizon...
I read somewhere that Fujitsu were liable for coding errors to the extent that there were penalty clauses for bugs etc.
So they denied they existed and were the cause for many of the adjustments made to the sub - postmasters accounts remotely - something they denied time after time that they did not have the capability of doing.
They were even able to log on using the sub-postmasters credentials - so no trace of their changes existed.
Despite its flaws, our system records transactions with user details for each transaction along with the PC name. "Key strokes" are also recorded to a separate database and the two can be compared.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
|
Just a thought. Around 700 sub-postmasters were prosecuted, but there's around eleven thousand sub post offices. Was everyone affected, or was it just a minority?
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
>> Just a thought. Around 700 sub-postmasters were prosecuted, but there's around eleven thousand sub post
>> offices. Was everyone affected, or was it just a minority?
>>
I think there were more "shortfalls" that were repaid by sub-postmasters, often taking out large loans or re-mortgaging and some becoming bankrupt or having to sell homes.
I spoke to one of Mrs Z's best friends who worked for Post Office Counters Ltd, actually on the counter in a main post office and helping out on a few smaller post offices.
The friend says that there were differences at the main post offices as well but they were just put in suspense accounts.
Thinking back on it, we had a corner-shop post office, newsagent, mini-supermarket thing about 15 minutes walk from our previous house. It closed in about 2004 and the owners looked "exhausted" and Tesco moved in. I wonder if the previous owners became a victim of Horizon?
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
>> Just a thought. Around 700 sub-postmasters were prosecuted, but there's around eleven thousand sub post
>> offices. Was everyone affected, or was it just a minority?
As Zippy says others were not prosecuted but made good losses and were potentially ruined financially by doing so. The Guardian's newsletter this morning says a further 100 or so people have come forward to one of the lawyers acting for SPMs since the matter was brought into focus by the ITV drama last week.
I wonder how effective the current focus will be or whether the whole business will sink back into the apparent torpor it was in since the Bates case was settled and the first few acquittals happened.
Lee Anderson, red waller and Tory Party deputy chair, is saying the responsibility for the entire saga lies with Ed Davey who was Minister for Posts in the early days of the coalition. Apperently he's the only one who held that office and is still an MP.
Somebody else this morning was asking why the Director of Public Prosecutions didn't step in when the Post Office was abusing it's powers so egregiously. DPP at the time of course was Keir Starmer - hopefully nobody is seriously trying to tar him over it. Unlike where you or I start a Private Prosecution and the DPP can step in I don't think there's any such opportunity where bodies like the PO, DWP or the Revenue Departments use their statutory powers to prosecute.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
|
Not forgetting current East Hull MP and Solicitor, Karl Turner (replaced John Prescott) who advised Janet Skinner, who despite denying she ever did anything wrong, to plead guilty to false accounting so the theft charge would be dropped.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
>> Not forgetting current East Hull MP and Solicitor, Karl Turner (replaced John Prescott) who advised
>> Janet Skinner, who despite denying she ever did anything wrong, to plead guilty to false
>> accounting so the theft charge would be dropped.
He was not alone in saying that and would arguably be derelict in his professional duty to give any other advice.
The evidence against the defendant was, as it seemed then, overwhelming. The jury are going to be 'so sure that they are certain', and find Ms Skinner or any other SPM guilty of theft. Gaol time guaranteed.
Plead guilty to the lesser offence and with a discount for plea and a following wind you'll be on a suspended sentence. One or two did that and went to gaol anyway.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:31
|
This special Private Eye report from 2020 consolidated a lot of the info they'd published over the previous 7 or more years and contains some interesting info.
www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justice-lost-in-the-post.pdf
Shame it's taken quite so long to catch the public eye!!
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
Thanks for that smokie, next on my reading list.
I've just pulled up the Court of Appeal's decision where most of the defendants, including Janet Skinner referenced by Fullchat, were acquitted. It's clear there that she was not alone in being acquitted notwithstanding a guilty plea. I'm pretty sure the PO's legal people were well aware that defendant's lawyers would tell them to accept the 'lesser charge' thing and used it to (their) full advantage.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Hamilton-Others-v-Post-Office-judgment-230421.pdf
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:28
|
|
Latest news is that former PO CEO Paula Vennels has surrendered her CBE.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
I saw part of an interview with Anderson about the PO saga on YT and he didn't say that Davey was responsible for the saga. He said that Davey refused to meet the postmaster's reps when it became apparent that something was seriously wrong yet he's now claiming that he was misled and blocked from meeting them.
Nowt to do with me mate, I'm was only the minister in charge.
It's perfectly understandable (at least to me) why anyone and everyone involved in this on the PO side is going to be under the spotlight and I seriously hope that there will be jail sentences when it's run it's course.
What I don't understand is the mindset of Fujitsu and PO top brass to take this action and why the day to day support folks didn't kick up a fuss when they twigged what was happening.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
>> Nowt to do with me mate, I'm was only the minister in charge.
Isn't there a Sir Humphrey Appleby phrase along the lines of 'would that be wise Minister'?
Rory Stewart wasn't over popular for his habit of ignoring Civil Service advice.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
>> Just a thought. Around 700 sub-postmasters were prosecuted, but there's around eleven thousand sub post
>> offices. Was everyone affected, or was it just a minority?
and therein lies the irony. If every sub post office was affected, the problem would have been flagged earlier, a defined defect would be logged, and Fujitsu / Post office would not be able to obfuscate and enter a phase of denial. In short the scandal wouldn't have happened.
|
>> and therein lies the irony. If every sub post office was affected, the problem would
>> have been flagged earlier, a defined defect would be logged, and Fujitsu / Post office
>> would not be able to obfuscate and enter a phase of denial. In short the
>> scandal wouldn't have happened.
Not sure I share your confidence there. The Private Eye link supplied by smokie and, if you've the time and persistence a read of the Bates judgements, suggest that the PO and Fujitsu knew full well what was going on but were determined to keep it under wraps.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
Just a thought. Around 700 sub-postmasters were prosecuted, but there's around eleven thousand sub post
>> offices. Was everyone affected, or was it just a minority?
Part of the problem I suspect is that embezzlement by sub-postmasters was far from unknown problem even in the days of manual accounting. Indeed the new system was no doubt seen as away to combat such fraud. The fact that the new system apparently confirmed such theft on a massive scale merely confirmed management suspicions with no one prepared to look deeper.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
Any IT gurus able to provide insight into what the Horizon system was?
I remember seeing it in action in my Safeway Post Office but, in modern day terms, you would just Class it as an EPOS system ie every transaction you did over the counter was keyed into the system.
So a glorified till which obviously had a back office reporting type system attached to it.
So what was the system actually doing wrong?
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
EPOS is, I think, the acronym used in the judgements in the Bates case and what you saw at Safeway was exactly that; a till with back office reporting functions.
The piece from Private Eye in smokie's post contains a potted history.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
Missed edit.
In short it was bug ridden carp.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
>> EPOS is, I think, the acronym used in the judgements in the Bates case and
>> what you saw at Safeway was exactly that; a till with back office reporting functions.
Kind of but not really. It was a kind of hybrid retail banking/EPOS solution. Made worse by the choice half way through development to add DHSS payment function, a requirement later dropped I believe. The banking aspect adds much higher levels of security and journaling than that required by retail solutions. The bespoke/hybrid solution is one of the reasons for its flakiness. EPOS is and was at the time, a pretty well developed and stable platform.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:29
|
>> Made worse by the choice half way through development to add DHSS payment function, a requirement
>> later dropped I believe.
As I read it the original intention was for a DHSS payment function to replace Giro cheques and order books with a card so benefits would be paid through the Post Office.
That was abandoned after spending millions and the functions that caused all the problems were, as it were, raked from the ashes.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
That the software may have been very flaky is incompetent not criminal. Disgraceful is that governance that should have been in place to identify and correct inadequacies was either completely deficient or deliberately ignored.
Those responsible for allowing so many to have suffered significant long term personal consequences need to be identified.
Appropriate punishment should follow - the "offence" may be incompetence or complacency. At the other extreme knowingly concealing or failing to act when the facts were clearly evident.
Senior officials and politicians should face the most severe sanctions - irrespective of their current positions and political pressures. Sadly I suspect those most likely to be complicit will have already destroyed much of the evidence.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
Ooooo Look what I found
www.fujitsu.com/downloads/SVC/fs/casestudies/uk-postoffice2.pdf
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
Knowingly concealing might not be too far removed from the truth.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-67921974
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
The part of the bank that I work in deals with a specialist set of products.
One rival has been accused of deliberately placing businesses in to administration where they got an alleged significant kick back from the administrators and were allowed, in their contracts with their customers, to charge "emergency" fees.
All they needed to do was provide a statement of account provided by their computer system at court to prove indebtedness with no back ground calculations. They could add whatever transactions they wanted to the statement before printing it off as the court would assume the "computer was correct".
Given the recent news re the reliance on computers, one might hope that some of that banks cases are reviewed.
BTW, we could do the same, but there is good segregation of duties - account managers or directors don't have permission to post transactions and we have reputational risk to worry about.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
I just recalled a previous thread on the PO scandal, it's here
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=29150&v=f
But to unpick it from this thread and move it to that would be a days work!!
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
This morning's papers reporting that the Chief Software Architect for Horizon has been asking for immunity before he will answer any questions and that the PO timed the release of thousands of documents to delay proceedings.
Also, that some of the prosecutions were actually brought by the CPS when Starmer was DPP.
I don't think the fan has been turned up to full yet.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
>> But to unpick it from this thread and move it to that would be a
>> days work!!
you are the only person that has that problem.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:30
|
|
Actually turned out to be easy :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 09:31
|
>> Actually turned out to be easy :-)
>>
Not like fixing Horizon then! :-)
|
|
... just wait till someone spots missing posts ..;-)
|
|
H'es stamping his authority on it.
|
...the BBC rolling story on this currently (14:48) contains the text:
"Lord Ken Macdonald, who was head the Crown Persecution Service from 2003-08, says it's "unprecedented" for the government to overturn the convictions of the victims of the Post Office scandal."
Wonder how long that'll be there before they fix it?
|
Spelling error aside he is of course correct when he says that the worries how the blanket overturning of convictions - done for the "best of reasons" in this case - will be used as a precedent for other cases in the future. "Once the dam is burst", it's unclear what process may be used in the future, he says.
The overruling of the judiciary by Acts of Parliament may well have unintended consequences.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 10 Jan 24 at 15:34
|
>> Spelling error aside he is of course correct when he says that the worries how
>> the blanket overturning of convictions - done for the "best of reasons" in this case
>> - will be used as a precedent for other cases in the future. "Once the
>> dam is burst", it's unclear what process may be used in the future, he says.
>>
>> The overruling of the judiciary by Acts of Parliament may well have unintended consequences.
There is a way round this, convictions were sought by the post office under their ancient prosecutorial powers, not the CPS. Declare those powers legally flawed and convictions unsafe. Post office should have those pwers withdrawn, and if they wish to represent cases its the CPS role.
|
|
That would result it anybody who has ever been prosecuted by the P.O having their convictions declared unsafe, not just the cases in question in the current scandal.
|
|
And frankly probably a good idea. The way they withheld evidence means they were unfit for that role
|
This came up on the news, the general consensus seemed it was so exceptional that it wasn't an issue. The gov had been to various judges this week, they were in support of the gov.
At the current rate it would take 70 years to clear the postmasters. Is that an option?
|
Strange, isn't it, that the government should be seen to be keen to unpick a problem that's been around for twenty years.
OH! Is it an election year?
|
|
The irony is of course, that the post office is becoming very much an irrelevance as an organisation/operation, and in 20 years time probably won't exist.
|
I can't see postal/parcel services continuing but I think they are trying to step in to fill the spot left by the departure of high street banks, and that may become their niche at least while cash still exists.
Though the queues at our local ones around Christmas were enough to put me off!!
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 11 Jan 24 at 11:19
|
|
We need the post offices now there are no banks.
|
|
If we did the banks wouldn't have closed nor the post office sub post office numbers cut. Stuff exists to meet demand. And "what about the old folks" argument don't cut it either, I am 70 and I don't.
|
While cash is still in use shops and businesses need somewhere to bank and change cash.
It's not all about you and what you need :-)
|
|
As I said, if there was a need, for anyone, it would still exist
|
>> While cash is still in use shops and businesses need somewhere to bank and change
>> cash.
17% of retail transaction are now in cash. And falling. Cash transactions cost anywhere between 4.7-15.3 percent of the value of the cash. The average credit card processing fee ranges between 1.5% and 3.5%.
Tell me we will still need cash handling facilities in 5, 10, 20 years time?
|
>>Cash....
I don't dispute your figures Zero, but I hope you are wrong, but suspect that you are correct.
(Even the Sally Army were using contactless devices to collect from debit / credit cards at the supermarket at Xmas and when I popped some change in the bucket, someone passing commented - how quaint!)
I work in banking, as you know, and can see how easy it is for an individual to be denied any banking services whatsoever, by action of just one bank - an incorrectly placed CIFAS marker can stop someone getting a new bank account, credit card, debit card, car insurance, home insurance etc. Without access to cash where would they be?
I like handing a tip to my waiter in restaurants, again cash. I don't add tips to devices.
Make it all electronic and it would be so easy for the state to act against individuals and to shut them out totally - as well as un-warranted intrusion - all your spending history would be potentially available to officials who "wanted to know".
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 11 Jan 24 at 16:21
|
|
And how would drug dealers make a living without cash?
|
|
How about a BACS transfer for your van load of catalytic converters?
|
As I understand it....
The 550 that went to court and got compensation from the Post Office, much of which was eaten up by legal fees, will not be entitled to further compensation as the Post Office considers that their payment was in full and final settlement.
Please tell me that I have this wrong.
|
>> The 550 that went to court and got compensation from the Post Office, much of
>> which was eaten up by legal fees, will not be entitled to further compensation as
>> the Post Office considers that their payment was in full and final settlement.
>> Please tell me that I have this wrong.
I understood those that were paid compensation, gave them the ability to get their convictions overturned, thus able to claim further compo.
|
AFAIK - sub postmasters have a contract with the Post Office
AFAIK - the Post Office has a contract with Fujitsu
As sub-postmasters have no contractual relationship with F and F have no control over the decision taken by the PO to prosecute sub-postmasters, I don't think Fujitsu are directly liable.
The PO may have a claim on F if they can prove that F failed to deliver that which was contracted or in some way manipulated live data or systems.
IMHO the PO were at the very least incompetent in their management of the F contract, may likely have been negligent, and quite possibly corrupt in covering up failings they were aware of in F systems to avoid the public embarrassment of an expensive failure.
Its the cover up that get them in the end!!
|
|
Not going to work for the ladies of the night. Don’t think they do contactless ( at least so I’ve heard).
|
|
They take credit cards in Prague. Well, the madams do.
|
|
I've heard a rumour the Diane Abbot was the person leading the Horizon software development team.
|
The stuff is starting to really hit the fan. There must be a few worried people right at the top of the Post Office and in government -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68079300
|
One can only hope for swift and appropriate action for those who knowingly allowed prosecutions to proceed in the knowledge that the were potentially flawed.
Write to you MP. Tell them precisely what you as a constituent expect - unambiguous and active support or they will not get your vote. Although in this country we rightly separate the judiciary from politics, the Home Secretary is ultimately accountable for the police.
The political elite (both parties) prevaricate, delay and obfuscate.. Demonstrating they can act swiftly, honestly and decisively should be critical to their public support.
|
>> Scapegoat,
A scalp to help Kemi Badenoch's political career, or so she hopes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 27 Jan 24 at 22:34
|
>>A scalp to help Kemi Badenoch's political career, or so she hopes.
I suspect being a vile scumbag, she is using Parliamentary privilege to defame the Scapegoat.
Will be interesting to see her repeat what she said in HoC outside.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68337728
|
She may be right - there is all but zero evidence of any redeeming PO behaviours or actions.
Although in office for a limited period, the defensive denial culture continues to pervade PO - denying those wronged proper compensation, and holding to account those responsible.
That political pressure had been applied to delay payment seems implausible (but not impossible).
The money is relatively trivial, will need to be paid at some point, and there are probably more political brownie points in resolving Horizon than letting it drag on into the election period.
BTW - no great fan of Kemi, but in this case she may have done the right thing!!
|
Alan Bates lost his business & £60K over 20 years ago.
His solicitors employed accountants who estimate claims using Court Guidance.
For losing his livelihood, 20 years unpaid work exposing the PO prosecuting & jailing postmasters he was offered 1/6th of the claim.
The Government promised £600K for postmasters who had their lives ruined - the PO are still dragging their feet on paying "fair compensation".
Meanwhile many innocent post masters are living in poverty & some dying before their names are cleared
|
|
I have no sympathy with the PO over this whole affair but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for claims to be properly scrutinised, which will take some time.
|
>> I have no sympathy with the PO over this whole affair but I don't think
>> it's entirely unreasonable for claims to be properly scrutinised, which will take some time.
>>
I think they've had long enough.
|
>>
>> I think they've had long enough.
I think you're right. The proof the PO brought at the time, basically that Horizon couldn't lie, has been refuted, disproved, blown out of the water AND the PO knew it was lying at the time in most cases.
There's also the issue of double jeopardy.
All they should be looking at in most cases is the value of the harm done and what punitive damages should be added. And then they should jail the people who knowingly signed off on lies. Including government ministers if they were complicit.
|
>> I have no sympathy with the PO over this whole affair but I don't think
>> it's entirely unreasonable for claims to be properly scrutinised, which will take some time.
If new claims emerge from people whose previous history has not been properly scrutinised then sure, they need looking at in proper detail.
On the other hand plenty of them have been through the courts and subject to any number of examination etc. processes.
|
|
I think the Post Office, as an organisation, is finished and will cease to exist within the next ten years. It has no USP, no real need to exist as a service in todays society. It merely exists as a left over corpse after the years of its constituent limbs being split off.
|
>> I have no sympathy with the PO over this whole affair but I don't think
>> it's entirely unreasonable for claims to be properly scrutinised, which will take some time.
>>
I think a decade or more should be plenty long enough even for the most diligent scrutiny. It is just incompetence, dishonesty, denial or a mix of all three.
|
Bear in mind they hadn't accepted any responsibility for the problems until relatively recently, which is really when the compo clock would start ticking, not while they were still in denial.
Also I think I read somewhere that over 30% of cases have actually been withdrawn or rejected - also that there have always been dishonest postmasters so you can't just go and payout willy nilly.
I also recall reading (was it here maybe?) that the normal process for overturning convictions etc is fairly cumbersome and there simply isn't enough spare court time/officials/whatever available to just process them all right away.
It is shocking that the management don't even appear to be under any threat of charges - but then I expect there is a lot going on which we aren't party to.
|
>> Bear in mind they hadn't accepted any responsibility for the problems until relatively recently, which
>> is really when the compo clock would start ticking, not while they were still in
>> denial.
Denial? Is that the same as knowing internally but public denial? ie withholding evidence?
|
Yes that's what I meant.
So they wouldn't start working out the compensation etc at that point would they? Only now, when the inquiry has drawn out the details and the general public is in uproar about it does the calculation of who is due what starts. (I feel I'm repeating myself!)
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to offer explanations as to why they can't just settle everything pronto, as suggested by an earlier poster.
Just wait till the Teesside scandal hits the news. It's been running a couple of years already in real life and in Private Eye and just gets worse... Not directly affecting members of the public in the same way as the PO but it smells of quite massive corruption to me, and must be costing the ratepayers/taxpayers millions in lost revenue. And Ben Houchen was made a peer by Boris!! Another Tory shocker... :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 20 Feb 24 at 21:05
|
>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to offer explanations as to why they
>> can't just settle everything pronto, as suggested by an earlier poster.
That's the line from the PO. The ex postmasters tell a different story.
>>
>> Just wait till the Teesside scandal hits the news. It's been running a couple of
>> years already in real life
Not heard about that one.
|
>> Yes that's what I meant.
>>
>> So they wouldn't start working out the compensation etc at that point would they? Only
>> now, when the inquiry has drawn out the details and the general public is in
>> uproar about it does the calculation of who is due what starts. (I feel I'm
>> repeating myself!)
Compensation to individuals who lost money, their businesses and in the case of those convicted their reputation is calculated under reasonably well established principles. In so far an money etc can do so they should be put back where they would have been had this not happened.
I'm not sure why the inquiry which, is progressing through its various modules, is going to help much. It's about who and how rather than the amounts.
|
I'm sure there have always been dishonest subpostmasters but this was an epidemic.
If anybody had looked at Harold Shipman's statistics he would have been caught years earlier. He was the common factor.
The common factors here were Horizon, the cover up, and the incompetent adjustments made by superusers sometimes with the users' credentials! There was no precedent for the amount of theft supposedly going on.
The PO knew there had been a big increase in the number and size of apparent defalcations. Instead of diligently following up on that in the knowledge that many SPMs with long service and good character were challenging the integrity of the Horizon system with similar experiences, the PO congratulated itself on identifying a level of theft that they assumed they had hitherto been unaware of.
Anybody who works in finance knows you have to investigate how a difference arises before it's assumed to be a cash error or theft and written off. At least to the point where you know the books are correct.
This is done by ticking off transactions and adding them up. This is called detailed auditing when it takes place in the absence of a known problem. EY as the PO auditors never did this, as is common with large companies they took the figures from the accounting system.
To what extent they identified the problems by sampling I don't know. I do know that the management letter following the 2011 audit did warn the PO of the lack of control over superusers and the wholly inadequate change control process of Fujitsu. It has been stated I think that there was never a system audit.
The PO had no more idea how the errors arose than the innocent SPMs did and theft was simply an assumption. There was no real evidence other than the assertion that Horizon was accurate and therefore the responsible human was the problem.
The evidence, incidentally, that Horizon was a good system was essentially that the debits and credits materially balanced at the global level - it was acknowledged that there were glitches but this 'balancing' was good enough for the PO and apparently its auditors. I do not know what the PO considered materiality to be. Did nobody ever go and tick off a few days work to see if the branch cash totals really were correct? Unbelievable.
|
PO Revenues approx £1Bn / year
an error of 1% is £10m
an error of 2% is £20m
The losses the PO claim from SPM was normally in the 10s of thousands - chicken feed.
Last week a company director was jailed for fraud on Royal Mail for £70m+
|
There seems to be another PO problem with, allegedly, fraudulent stamps. This was raised on a local radio consumer program. Customers are buying stamps over-the-counter and recipients are being asked to cough up five quid excess charge, as the stamp is fraudulent. As soon as it was mentioned, a number of calls came in from other listeners who had the same problem.
I've got the popcorn!
|
>>Fraudulent stamps...
Are the stamps issued by the Royal Mail?
Looking at the small code strip (bar-code / QR-code thing) and the speed these are scanned at, I wouldn't be surprised if there were scanning errors or even printing errors at the printers.
It's a bit worrying if fake stamps are getting to post offices and other retailers.
I hope it's not posties being crooked and claiming a fake stamp to obtain a few extra quid.
|
Much more likely the sender tried to re-use stamps in the mistaken belief that since they no longer visibly frank stamps it cannot be detected. Of course stamps are now cancelled eletronically.
On being questioned they of course state that they bought the stamp at the post office or supermarket.
|
Much more likely the sender tried to re-use stamps in the mistaken belief that since they no longer visibly frank stamps
I listened to the original radio phone in, the first person who called in had the stamps purchased from and affixed by the PO counter clerk, (without actually being handed the stamps).
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0h7cq3g
initial call at 9 minutes, other callers at 33minutes
|
>> There seems to be another PO problem with, allegedly, fraudulent stamps. This was raised on
>> a local radio consumer program. Customers are buying stamps over-the-counter and recipients are being asked
>> to cough up five quid excess charge, as the stamp is fraudulent.
This is not related to the post office in anyway. This is a Royal Mail problem, a different company. The majority of stamps sold are now not sold through post offices.
|
|
In this case the stamps were supplied and affixed by a Post Office counter clerk.
|
>> In this case the stamps were supplied and affixed by a Post Office counter clerk.
>>
Allegedly,
|
Maybe materiality for the PO in accounting terms started at £100k - £1m. Anything under that would not affect the finances and could be assumed to be to do with timing differences etc. Maybe it was 'only' £100k. either of those sums of course is material to a typical SPM.
Neither does a near total balance give much of a clue to the size of the errors when there are compensating ones. That's why they have to be found, not just put down to human error/theft. The whole thing is beyond comprehension.
The system was known to be riddled with bugs at launch.
Mildly informative article
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post-offices-horizon-system-failed-a-technical-breakdown
|
Fake stamps, counterfeits if you like, are a known issue.
As above, these days relatively few are issued by Post Offices and where they are the PO sells them as an agent for Royal Mail. Stock etc held for others like that, as well as Lottery, TAx Discs etc was one of the complicating issues for Horizon.
Lots of small village stores shops, not Sub POst Offices, sell them as a convenience offer with cards etc. The store operator may be crooked, or perhaps on of his counter staff. Or he could be sold them by a supplier who is crooked or has holes in his systems.
We're now actively discouraged from buying stamps for the odd item we need to post out to clients or DWP. There's a system we can log into that gives us a unique reference number and charges the charity directly. We jut put the items in a tray/box at the PO - like there used to be for Franked Mail.
Not used it yet as our village PO, hosted by the pharmacy, closed at the end of last year.
New set up opens at the village shop some time next month.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 22 Feb 24 at 11:46
|
Anyone can of course now buy their postage on line. No need to buy stamps or visit a post office at all. They will even collect the item from you.
send.royalmail.com
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 22 Feb 24 at 12:01
|
...given the latest developments (The business & trade committee today asking for urgent full sight of the 80-page report into the Chief Exec's conduct (not the dismissed Chairman)) it seems there's just a chance Ms Badenoch may have shot the wrong fox.
Whatever, it adds a bit more credibility to Staunton's account, and Kemi appears to suddenly have gone invisible.
If indeed Staunton is largely blameless, parliamentary privilege will protect her, but I doubt the comments would be discounted in any action for wrongful dismissal.
|
Announced today
By July the Government intends to have passed the legislation to erase the convictions of postmasters who were found guilty of fraud due to Horizon faults in the period of 1999 onwards. There are some cases prior to 1999 in Pilot sites - they will also qualify.
This applies to E&W only although it is expected to be followed by Scotland & NI - different laws apply here.
Concerns abounded around the fact that some fraudsters will get a pardon & money but this is the only way to get the decks cleared for the thousands affected - some have already died & others are now much older and living in poverty as they lost their business, were bankrupted, jailed, divorced etc etc
|
>>
>>
>> Concerns abounded around the fact that some fraudsters will get a pardon & money
>>
>>
>>
And good luck to them too. The Post Office have been so criminally corrupt and incompetent for the twenty plus years this scandal has been allowed to fester they deserve everything they are going to get and a lot more besides.
|
>>
>> And good luck to them too. The Post Office have been so criminally corrupt and
>> incompetent for the twenty plus years this scandal has been allowed to fester they deserve
>> everything they are going to get and a lot more besides.
>>
Are you actually saying that you applaud the payment of large sums of money to those postmasters who did actually commit fraud?
Statistically there must have been a significant number of genuine fraudsters convicted. Fraud has always been present in the Post Office and indeed the reduction of such fraud was one of the reasons why the new computer system was introduced. A local postmaster here was jailed in the mid eighties for fraud.
|
...and those that actually did commit fraud would have been adding to the weight of opinion in the PO management that there was a considerably wider issue.
Even now, it would appear that PO management is of the view that a significant number of the prosecutions were "safe", being additionally supported by non-Horizon evidence.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/22/post-office-said-last-month-it-stands-by-most-horizon-convictions
I think, given the furore about what happened, and the logistical difficulties of treating each case individually, that the mass exoneration is probably the most appropriate way forward, (certainly the quickest/easiest) but it will undoubtedly exonerate and compensate some who were guilty, and I certainly wouldn't rejoice about that.
Prior to Horizon, there were thousands of discrepancies each month, and a good number of those were pursued as embezzlement.
|
>>Even now, it would appear that PO management is of the view that a significant number of the >>prosecutions were "safe", being additionally supported by non-Horizon evidence.
Just shows how arrogant they are.
The Horizon system was faulty. It recorded transactions incorrectly, some of the known bugs included not getting the "signs" right - i.e. negative amounts posted when positive amounts should have been posted, and they still have the gall to say that they were right.
|
>> >>Even now, it would appear that PO management is of the view that a significant
>> number of the >>prosecutions were "safe", being additionally supported by non-Horizon evidence.
>>
>> Just shows how arrogant they are.
Probably a number of them were safe convictions. But once you go round deliberately withholding evidence, you have lost the moral authority to justify them. The irony is that if they had embraced the fact changes to journaling were made, kept a record of them, they could have been used to debunk a PM's defence that the system caused the shortfall.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 23 Feb 24 at 12:13
|
Unless there was other evidence - CCTV, witnesses, evidence of villas in Spain with no corresponding explanation for where the money came from, then there can have been few if any "safe" convictions.
The trigger for and evidence of practically all such prosecutions generally speaking is that there are false entries or black holes in the accounts. Horizon created both of those things.
The best one can say is that some embezzlers were "accidentally" included. A forensic re-examination of every case would not necessarily separate the sheep from the goats.
The more competent embezzlers might even have got away with it as a consequence of Horizon's failings, e.g. by pocketing spurious "overs" it created.
|
>> Statistically there must have been a significant number of genuine fraudsters convicted. Fraud has always
>> been present in the Post Office and indeed the reduction of such fraud was one
>> of the reasons why the new computer system was introduced. A local postmaster here was
>> jailed in the mid eighties for fraud.
I am sure that amongst the group "pardon" there will have been some who were actually guilty.
It is unclear is how many of these would likely be included in the ~900 cases - but I suspect a small minority. Those wrongly convicted have waited an intolerable length of time for justice.
Absolution of the genuinely guilty is a price justified by swift resolution for those wrongly convicted .
|
|
Possibly but a pardon that effectively says “we know some of you were innocent and some of you were guilty but we don’t know which are which so we will pardon the lot of you” doe not really clear the names of the innocent.o
|
>> Possibly but a pardon that effectively says “we know some of you were innocent and
>> some of you were guilty but we don’t know which are which so we will
>> pardon the lot of you” doe not really clear the names of the innocent.o
>>
I don't see any better options, there could be an analysis case by case, but by the time it'd been through the legal hoops most would be dead. Or a blanket ban both have downsides.
|
Long standing saying amongst the legal profession
Better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent person is found guilty.
The large majority of SPM were innocent BUT were found guilty by the Post Office Legal team / CPS and Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) offering up "dodgy evidence".
The Post Office did not admit there were major errors in their software / Fujitsu hiding their back door access to branch accounts data.
The PO instigated investigations internally and brought in 2nd Sight around 2014 - however on seeing the draft 2nd Sight report they sacked the investigators as it was deemed that it would bring the PO into disrepute - Paula Vennels was involved at this stage.
Even after the court case of 2019 the PO has spent more on lawyers than they have paid out in reparations to 109 people who have won their appeals against the charges levelled by the PO/CPS & Procurator Fiscal.
The Lord Advocate, Chief Prosecutor in Scotland, was made aware by the Procurator Fiscal Staff that there were shortcomings in the PO evidence in Horizon prosecutions. There were no more cases after 2014 in Scotland.
The horrendous part of this was that the Lord Advocate did not order re- investigations in Horizon Fraud trials from 1999 to 2015 .
Of the roughly 100 Horizon cases in Scotland only 5/6 have been exonerated - they are all older and at least 1 had died before the guilty verdict was quashed.
I have followed the PO scandal since it was first aired in 2009 by Computer Weekly - it was bad in 2009 and every year since the Post Office have been exposed as thoroughly corrupt from the top down.
Looks like the Home Office will have many new prisoners in the future - perjury in courts and to government committees, malicious prosecution, extorting money from innocent SPM ...........
This scandal will run for many more years even after the UK Government eventually pay out the 900+SPM
|
Well a new "secret" document (Bramble) written by Deloitte for the Post Office in 2017 indicates that there were problems with the Horizon system yet the PO steamrollered on with prosecutions and denials. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68663750
All of those in the PO who did know what was going on, plus any who should have known but claimed they didn't, and especially those who continued the process, should be imprisoned. That should include Paula Vennels and probable most of the Board, and the investigators. I suppose perjury might be a starting point for some but there's probably something more suitable.
That's what they were trying to do to innocent people.
It is truly unbelievable, especially in a public body.
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 28 Mar 24 at 20:42
|
Porridge for a number of PO senior managers, lawyers, investigators, prosecutors, Fujitsu expert witnesses etc etc
However, it has taken 20 years for action to quash the convictions of SPM as Horizon problems were known about and ignored.
How long will it take to raise cases of perjury, blackmailing SPM into handing over money / going bankrupt for "system" generated shortfalls .................
Horizon shortfalls are still being made today. Fujitsu has never managed to eliminate the bugs in 25+ years.
|
>> Porridge for a number of PO senior managers, lawyers, investigators, prosecutors, Fujitsu expert witnesses etc
>> etc
Wont happen. too many prominent figures could be hauled in. The level of implication by the legal profession in this is what shocks me most I think. Its starting to make the basis of our legal system look pretty ropey. I can just about understand withholding facts, but some of this looks like perjury.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 Mar 24 at 09:42
|
The lawyer's regulators are on it so we may see a few disciplined.
As to criminality it may be difficult to pin enough on one or more individuals.
|
If they applied the same standards of evidence and proof to the prosecution of PO staff implicated as they did to the SPMs they found guilty, there would be hundreds behind bars.
Failure to take very swift action undermines any trust in our once respected legal system. That it may result in convictions for the "great and good" would be a clear demonstration that all are equal under the law, not a failing and corrupt society.
|
>> >> Porridge for a number of PO senior managers, lawyers, investigators, prosecutors, Fujitsu expert witnesses
>> etc
>> >> etc
>>
>> Wont happen. too many prominent figures could be hauled in. The level of implication by
>> the legal profession in this is what shocks me most I think. Its starting to
>> make the basis of our legal system look pretty ropey. I can just about understand
>> withholding facts, but some of this looks like perjury.
>>
Barrister admitted getting an expert witness to change his testimony - outrageous!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68606121
|
To be fair. in the last but one extract, it was asked to explain what was meant by 'screen calibration issues' and to give examples. (not highlighted).
In this instance is it a case of taking part of a statement out of context thereby making inferences?
Not defending what they did of course but there is a danger of the meddling press potentially destroying a case just for headlines.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 29 Mar 24 at 10:53
|
I wouldn't say it was surprising, he who pays the piper...
Makes you wonder what other trials have been corrupted in some way by amended expert witnesses. I think i said it somewhere up thread, this will undermine future expert witnesses. Well they would say that...
|
>> Makes you wonder what other trials have been corrupted in some way by amended expert
>> witnesses. I think i said it somewhere up thread, this will undermine future expert witnesses.
>> Well they would say that...
>>
Sally Clark (RIP) served 11 years of a life sentence before appeal.
Professor Sir Roy Meadow's evidence (which appears to have been totally incorrect) was the basis for hers and other mother's trails. He was the go to expert witness because the authorities knew what his input to the trial would be.
A dreadful miscarriage which ruined Sally Clark's life and probably contributed to her later problems (drink?) which lead to her death - 11 years in prison as a child murderer must be horrendous.
|
Meadows was a paediatrician. If he'd kept to that and not tried to be an expert in statistics too Sally Clark might have lived longer.
What is, in a way, more alarming is that Judges, Counsel and other experts were themselves not numerate enough to ask more questions.
|
|
Plus the fact that the prosecution didn't disclose to the defence that one of the sons had an infection that probably killed him - adding to the miscarriage.
|
>> Plus the fact that the prosecution didn't disclose to the defence that one of the
>> sons had an infection that probably killed him - adding to the miscarriage.
Failure to disclose properly. A theme that runs through miscarriages of justice passim including Horizon.
See also Stefan Kizsko.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Mar 24 at 16:45
|
He was the go to expert witness because the
>> authorities knew what his input to the trial would be.
>>
Pretty common i would have thought. They only want the experts giving the answers they want to hear.
|
|
You can find an 'expert' to tell you anything you want.
|
Witnesses before the Post Office inquiry may have to be recalled because the PO has delayed disclosing evidence.
www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/post_office_horizon_evidence/?td=rt-3a
|
|
She ought to have a rope put round her neck. The level of corruption and deceit by the Post Office mirrors that of a third world banana republic.
|
There was a lady being interviewed on the news the other day.
She said she got an apology letter but it's meaningless because they couldn't even spell her name correctly.
I wonder if that's deliberate - a further insult?
|
|
Alan Bates made a comment about Vennell enjoying her French villa. I wonder if it was a dig about her and her cronies enjoying some time at His Majesty's Pleasure?
|
I think the Home Office should be planning a new PO / Fujitsu Wing to the prison estate.
PO Investigators? PO Lawyers? Senior PO & Fujitsu Managers? PO /Fujitsu Directors? Civil Servants? PO Ministers?
Over 25 years
Perjury, demanding money with menaces, knowingly prosecuting SPM based on evidence from a POS system with known faults, failing to disclose key information to defence solicitors, lying to Government Committees .................
|
|
Totally agree. I wondered if this was what Alan Bates meant when he asked if Vennells was enjoying her french villa.
|
I've watched a fair bit of the inquiry recently and for once I don't think the PO ministers can be blamed, nor civil servants. They seemed to have been kept in the dark.
The woman who has been on for the past couple of days (Van den Bogerd IIRC) seemed a particularly shifty type. I do understand that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 2008, and she can't remember a lot of the detail from around that time and since, but I laughed out loud at Jason Beer's question yesterday (maybe Thurs) which went something like "we've heard about all the things which weren't your responsibility or under you remit, what exactly did you do as a post office director?" Also yesterday his comment to an answer which was not relevant - something like "that is not the answer to my question. If I'd asked .... then that would be the answer. But I didn't, I asked ..."
As an aside, I don't really know how these inquiries arrive at a conclusion. there have been probably millions of pages of evidence submitted so the bits you hear in public are really just scratching the surface. I realise the lawyers have gone through everything from the whole PO cast, and picked out he bits which suit them best (and which they also cleverly cross reference between different contemporaneous stuff from other seemingly unrelated pieces of evidence, as well as across long time scales) but no-one could possibly read and digest all the evidence to come to a proper conclusion.
In that respect, it seems the PO was doomed from the start (which in this case may feel appropriate but to be fair the inquiry counsel do have a knack of spinning stuff which feels fairluy innocuous to me into something damning).
|
Jason Beer KC
Truly switched on, never seems to stumble and obviously on top of every piece of evidence offered up.
The witnesses on the other hand seem to suffer from sloping shoulders and early on-set dementia.
The quality of senior PO staff, so far, appears to be from the bottom of the class whether they are senior managers, lawyers, IT specialists, finance
|
I think that to form a clear view of the inadequacies of the PO is fairly easy arising from incompetence, dishonesty, mis-judgements, negligence etc.
Sadly criminal conviction and punishment of those whose performance fell hugely below that which is acceptable may be more difficult - it relies upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil cases require a balance of probability. There is little doubt that liability is accepted - but it is the PO that will be held liable, not the directors and managers.
Rather negative - I hope there are some smart prosecution lawyers who can find a way to make mud properly stick.
|
|
They are just taking a leaf out of Sturgeon's playbook. If the question is one which could cause you trouble it is to be answered 'I do not recall that'.
|
At some point there must have been a meeting where someone in authority, either singularly or as a collective, issued a directive that the matter should be hidden.
Someone needs the gonads to stick their head above the parapet and whistle blow. They may of course need some sort of immunity promise.
|
Over the past few days there's been quite a few attempts to show that FC, with only limited success. But it is clear that the party line was that there were no problems with Horizon, despite knowledge, or at least some level of warnings, of issues being present from (I think) at least 2008 if not earlier. I can understand they wouldn't want to immediately cave in and accept it's all their issue, and I also believe them when they say that fraud/theft by SPMs wasn't that uncommon, but the fact was that the PO carried on in denial of potential system problems for many years, and yesterday the point came out that a strategy would be to basically outgun sub-postmaster by out-lawyering them and otherwise throwing money at them to shut them up. I remember Private Eye reporting that they even tried to get a judge thrown off one of the more recent trials for some spurious reason (and at quite some expense!!) to continue to put off the inevitable.
To be fair I think I'd struggle to recall details like they are being asked to from 12 years ago. Also having already been through the High Court and their evidence bundles etc etc it might become a bit hazy what is truly recalled and what has been in-filled subsequently. That's not to give them any benefit of doubt though.
One thing which has surprised me with van den Boden and others is the ability to apparently recall some stuff quite vividly but none of the important stuff.
I didn't much take to the hectoring style of the baldy at the end yesterday (Sam Stein I think). But that's his style, nice bit of grandstanding!
|
>>
>> One thing which has surprised me with van den Boden and others is the ability
>> to apparently recall some stuff quite vividly but none of the important stuff.
I thought that as well. All first names when it came to SPMs then extremely vague. I wasn't over that/aware of it. Seemed a pretty bizarre organisation, people seemed to pick and choose what jobs they wanted then didn't follow them though. So no one person followed a project from start to finish.
>> I didn't much take to the hectoring style of the baldy at the end yesterday
>> (Sam Stein I think). But that's his style, nice bit of grandstanding!
>>
>>
I think some like to play the actor on stage role.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 27 Apr 24 at 15:56
|
>> I remember Private Eye reporting that they even tried to get a judge thrown off one
>> of the more recent trials for some spurious reason (and at quite some expense!!) to
>> continue to put off the inevitable.
They did exactly that:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/bates-judgment-no.4-9-april-19-final.pdf
In the wider context of Bates case the Judge was not impressed by Ms van den B.
Vennels will be the most interesting witness as it's pretty clear she lead a culture where telling the truth about Horizon was career limiting.
|
Having watched a bit more, it's surprising (or not perhaps) how many people have an complete memory failure of even basic facts of their time in the PO. Things like job titles, roles, line managers etc of say 10-15 years ago so not that long ago.
I have no recollection of xyz seems quite common.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 30 Apr 24 at 20:53
|
PO Witnesses
Sloping shoulders & early on-set dementia seems to be the order of the day. Nobody was aware of any matters and they "never knew about anything wrong"
Directors, CEOs, Senior Managers, Lawyers, Prosecutors, Investigators all seem afflicted.
However, the best is yet to come............ Paula Vennels is on for 3 days later this month
Mr Jason Beer KC will have a field day - a KC, who specialises in Public Enquiries, and has shown over the length of enquiry how well he performs his inquisitions.
If you have not seen him in action it's worth 10 minutes of your time - slow motion but "never misses" getting to the facts. He, and his backroom team, have read hundreds of thousands of emails, reports, investigations, court documents, witness statements etc an pieced it together into his battle plan for each & every witness.
|
Richard Moorhead's blog on the inquiry is interesting:
richardmoorhead.substack.com/
His reporting of the evidence of Susan Crichton, a lawyer who as 'manged out' for purring her professional obligations ahead of those of the company, is revealing.
Vennels 3 days will be compulsive viewing.
|
Following your post Bromps I subscribed to Richard Moorhead's emails and they've been quite interesting reading, albeit a bit over my head on occasions. Lately, with the lawyers giving evidence, he particularly is picking apart their words into whether they properly fulfilled their lawyerly duty and obligations in carrying out their work for the PO. It seems to me he feels they often didn't, and today he talks about whether the inquiry will pick up on some of the stuff he's spotted. Some of his stuff would maybe feel like him being picky to the layman but I expect they are actually fairly important points of lawyer "rules and regs" or somesuch, and may at some time have a significance beyond the PO.
In my mind this inquiry already has tens of thousands of pages of witness statements and other documentation to trawl through, cross refence and consider. What we are seeing and hearing is clearly the tip of the iceberg, though I'm sure the inquiry team make sure that it is the most damning or juicy stuff which is surfacing.
The amount of effort which must have gone into examining all the documents and comparing and contrasting different accounts of the same events by different people in advance of the hearing to me is mind-blowing. Then you have the grandstand of the actual public inquiry. But it's made me realise why inquiries take so long (with appropriate costs) - as there must be highly qualified teams reviewing everything again after the public sessions and working out what is bad and what isn't, then a review of everything and a final report and whatever else that brings along.
Anyway, as per Bromps link above you can read Moorhead's stuff at richardmoorhead.substack.com/ ig you are so minded (and have a spare fewe hours!!)
|
>> PO Witnesses
>> Sloping shoulders & early on-set dementia seems to be the order of the day. Nobody
>> was aware of any matters and they "never knew about anything wrong"
>>
>> Directors, CEOs, Senior Managers, Lawyers, Prosecutors, Investigators all seem afflicted.
>>
Seems to have been an essential requirement.
>> If you have not seen him in action it's worth 10 minutes of your time
>> - slow motion but "never misses" getting to the facts. He, and his backroom team,
>> have read hundreds of thousands of emails, reports, investigations, court documents, witness statements etc an
>> pieced it together into his battle plan for each & every witness.
>>
That's the chap I watched, the bit I saw he was asking questions to an ex PO auditor who had very little memory of her time at the PO, including not remembering going to court. I think she remembered her own name though.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 1 May 24 at 12:19
|
Shifty McShifty was today's victim. Jarnail Singh, the PO criminal lawyer. It's his second appearance. Another one who seemed to not really have much responsibility for anything, if he is to be believed. Worse than many politicians at avoiding answering a question, or angering a question he'd not been asked - but Jason kept the pressure on.
I felt it unbelievable that when he said he didn't know how to save a Word document in 2010. He denied one or two things which were clearly true. He had a great memory for some events which potentially deflected criticism from him but couldn't remember any of the details about whether he'd read or printed documents which they had evidence to prove that he had.
When they put up some of the emails which he himself had written (- his PA usually did this apparently) his grammar, spelling, layout and logical thought process were surely questionable.
I hate to be too judgemental but he's another one who deserves a stay somewhere at His Majesty's pleasure.
|
>> Another one who seemed to not really have much responsibility for anything, if he is
>> to be believed.
He had a great memory for some events which potentially deflected criticism from him but couldn't
>> remember any of the details about whether he'd read or printed documents which they had
>> evidence to prove that he had.
>>
That appears to be the standard defence in this inquiry.
|
Pattern of many witnesses
Sloping Shoulders and Early onset dementia
With the exception of them not being responsible for very much, a small cog in the large Post Office Wheel. Presumably being amply rewarded in both salary & pensions.
Law degree but knowing nothing about criminal law. Knowledge that the man/woman in the street would call common sense.
Accountancy degree qualification but unaware of IT/Law.
IT degree qualification but knowing little about networks, hardware or software and nothing about Accounting or Law BUT due to their job title can appear as an expert advising Senior Management (who, unfortunately) are similarly affected by memory loss of key events.
|
Wouldn't be surprised if Vennels magics up a sick note before her go in the hot seat.
Suspect she'll be torn to pieces.
|
|
Can't wait. Due 22, 23, 24 May apparently.
|
I suspect it'll be the same as the rest,
I don't really remember
I wasn't aware of that
I only dealt with part of that
Etc
|
I doubt many of you will have heard the rather slippery (to say the least) Jarnail Singh last week. He denied that he was Head of Criminal Law at the Post Office - "They are now but they weren't calling me Head of Criminal Law at that time." In fact he denied mostly everything, in some cases even before a fact was put before hiom.
Today there is a barrister from one of the external companies where a note of his from a meeting in 2013 describing Jarnail as Head of Criminal Law.
A small handful of the witnesses at times have almost made me wonder whether there actually was anything sinister about the Post Office behaviour but on his own Jarnail has persuaded me that there almost definitely is. I didn't think anyone would dare lie quite so blatantly as he has.
|
After the the Horizon Report (or even before publication) I am sure there will be many cases brought to court.
From watching the enquiry for the odd hour or so & reading up the coverage in the papers it's not going to be the odd case but possibly dozens of PO, external advisers etc + Fujitsu people on serious charges.
Vennels 22nd May for 3 days - Jason Beer KC - should be "informative"
|
I am less than convinced there will be many prosecutions.
For a criminal conviction a very high standard of evidence is required. Substantial group memory loss means that prosecution will be heavily reliant on documented unambiguous evidence.
Even if the a prosecution can prove a report or email was produced, assertions that it was never read or received cannot easily be disproved (however implausible the excuse may be)
This has all the hallmarks of other scandals - eg: contaminated blood products, thalidomide etc.
Delay long enough and those responsible are either elderly or dead, and costs reduced as compensation is paid only to those still living.
|
Yes, unfortunately I agree with Terry - the likelihood of any successful prosecution is pretty slim as even the written words they are analysing can be interpreted more than one way.
Thus a lot of the questioning is around "can you help us with what this bit means"
|
|
I think certain people are still open to the "could have or should have known".
|
And yet many postmasters ended up in prison with an equal level of evidence I suspect.
|
Get yer popcorn ready, it's day 1 (of 3) of Paula Vennels in front of the inquiry, from 09:45.
(near) Live at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljlKH7qLiyM
|
Great opener by Jason Beer - along the lines of "Given what we now know do you consider yourself to have been the unluckiest CEO in the country"
|
Beer is part surgeon, part cat, and part Spanish Inquisition.
And his wit is greater than Vennels's.
This will be horrific.
|
|
I see she ended up sobbing. I have a degree of sympathy for her, she was clearly out of her depth in that role and had to fall back on a hard nosed approach, meaning she didn't really manage to get to the nitty gritty of the problem, took advice from and relied on the input of other bum coverering obfuscaters.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 22 May 24 at 14:33
|
|
I'm not sure that pleading the Peter Principle is a valid defence.
|
Yes I'm starting to think you're not far wrong Zero.
Clearly organisationally the PO was a dinosaur in the way it went about things, and was very inward looking with a number of long-timers at the top, who'd worked their way up rather than learnt their trades in other companies.
I'm getting today that she was surrounded by people who, it seems, weren't especially helpful or caring, or good at sharing info. For instance she has mentioned Angela van der Bogey a few times (who I previously mentioned I thought shifty), characterising her as someone who had been with the PO for years and years and sometimes had a narrow defensive view on complaints.
She accepts that there was a lot wrong in it's (lack of) process and she appears to have tried to change things. As CEO she had gaps in her knowledge in the which by her own admission ought not be there, and there were things she ought to have known or been briefed about but she didn't - the one which has come up before is not knowing for some time that the PO did its own investigations and prosecutions - but it never occurred to her to ask who DID do them, when presented. She said near the beginning she felt she had trusted senior long serving people too much and I don't think she's lying on that.
As expected, Jason Beer is being smart and impressive. I guess the "prosecutor" is somewhat selective in what he is showing, and sometimes selectively presents written things which on the face of it seem fairly reasonable. With the hindsight and knowledge we have now, these often seem to be fairly damning.
Clearly as head of the organisation she has responsibility but tbh she isn't coming across as the hard nosed lying cow she's been depicted. The crying happened two or three times and was during answers which must have been quite hard for her, one when she was being quizzed about a sub-postmaster who committed suicide by walking in front of a bus. The family directly blamed the PO. In internal emails she'd raised some not entirely unreasonable (but, with hindsight, harsh sounding) points for someone to look at - e.g. were there other factors, was there any history of mental illness. Beer made it sound like she simply didn't care but all the mails she sent on the subject did start by showing concern for the SPO.
One other refreshing point is that her memory seems to be generally better than that of many of her ex-colleagues!!
|
She was on £4 million a year. She didn't get that job by being a complete patsy. If she wasn't actually dissembling then she was at the least derelict in her duty and incompetent.
Given what was done to the SPM's there can be no excuses.
Equally, these cover-ups have a kind of inevitability about them. When stuff goes this wrong, it takes years after a lot of people know it for it to properly admitted unless if brings about a catastrophe first. cf. Enron, the banking crisis, contaminated blood, BSE, smoking and lung cancer...
|
Vennels - sloping shoulders and difficulty recollecting key facts.
She has admitted not being au fait with law, accountancy, IT and virtually everything else.
It is quite difficult to see why she was CEO and what she actually did in her 12 years at the PO.
Jason Beer KC - 1 day down 2 to go -he knows more about the failings of PO than anybody else that has appeared in the PO Inquiry as witnesses.
|
I'm far from becoming a Paula fanboy but I seem to have been watching a different Paula Vennels all day than you FB (did you watch it btw?).
I've not noticed any significant difficulty with her recollecting key facts, or blaming others. I missed the bit where she admitted not being au fait with the stuff you mention. Many of the other PO witnesses have had those traits in spades but so far she hasn't come close..
I agree with a lot of what Manatee says but for me it's almost beyond doubt that she was surrounded by people who knew more than they let on, and were protecting their positions (and, misguidedly, the Post Office). Some of them have been decidedly slippery and that includes Fujitsu.
|
There are but a limited number of explanations for her performance today:
- she was utterly deficient and incompetent as a chief executive
- she was evasive with selective memory loss
- she was lying
I am inclined to the view that all three bullets above played a part in her testimony. I have no sympathy for her. She was very generously rewarded for the job she failed to do properly.
In an ideal world she would face prosecution and a lengthy prison term for the distress she (almost certainly) inflicted on many others.
Congestion in the prison system + the snail like efficiency of the UK judicial process probably means she will, like many of her victims, be dead before justice intervenes.
|
|
I thought there are fewer answers of convenient forgetfulness today but quite a few silences and politician type answers.
|
I'm sure she has done plenty wrong but the senior management team around her seem to have plenty to answer for too. She was kept in the dark about quite a bit of very significant stuff, and/or given misleading briefs and info if she's to be believed.
For some reason, having expected to really enjoy seeing her squirm under questioning I am actually finding myself with some sympathy for her on some aspects.
|
>>She was kept in the dark about quite
>> a bit of very significant stuff, and/or given misleading briefs and info if she's to
>> be believed.
Others will say that she made very clear what she wanted to hear and hell would be visited on anyone who resisted such requests.
|
if she's to
>> be believed.
>>
>>
Yes, if.
I wonder what she did all day. She seems to know very little about any of the controversial/key issues.
|
I think she'd reached the level of what one of my early managers (later good friend) termed "figurehead f***about".
Given the acceptance of the job and the pay that goes with it, it doesn't mean such a position shouldn't ultimately be held accountable.
|
Vennels has been thoroughly prepared by Mishcon De Reya - her legal team.
They will have gone over the evidence and briefed her on replies. to key questions
Ordinary Joe or Joe Bloggs could not afford the daily rates charged.
|
>>some sympathy for her on some aspects...
None from me.
We have client's defraud us at work. They often cry when caught saying that they had nowhere else to turn - rubbish, we gave them every opportunity to increase facilities, or do other things that they need to do.
They are not crying in repentance, they are crying because they were caught.
IMHO, she is crying because she was caught and is feeling sorry for herself.
And of course there is the smoking gun: www.itv.com/news/2024-05-21/paula-vennells-smoking-gun-email-reveals-post-office-cover-up
According to this article, she lied to Parliament and should go to prison.
|
Yes OK, I'd like to row back on my comments a bit, though I did say "some sympathy", I didn't say I thought she was innocent!!
However it does seem she was surrounded by load of people who were not very good at informing her of what was going on, or if they had, didn't support her very well by reminding her to address things they'd raised. She also didn't ask the right questions but with hindsight that is much clearer than I imagine it was at the time.
And some of the picking the wording of emails apart to infer the intent behind them has been a bit overdone IMO. There was one which was a request to some of her senior officers for some info for the Select Committee. She was imagining a question she may be asked. It went something like
“Is it possible to access the system remotely? We are told it is”
Then her mail went on to say
“What is the true answer? I hope it is that this is not possible and that we are able to explain why that is. I need to say no it is not possible and that we are sure of this because of xxx and that we know this because we have had the system assured”
Jason says that the bit which starts “I need to say” is her trying to steer the answer. She says (and in this one I believe her) that she is trying to tell them is the how she’d need to present the answer, were they to say it were possible. I don't think that was as damning as the press and Jason made out.
And he has more than occasionally been selective in which extracts from documents he reads out, and has skipped over parts of emails which clarify whatever the offending point is. But I suppose that's how these things work. But he is great to watch, a brilliant mind and fast thinking.
|
>>
>>
>> None from me.
>>
>>
>>
Nor from me. My sympathy goes to those who were wrongly convicted and lost everything because of that.
She was either lying through her teeth or was so incompetent she should have been cleaning the toilets instead of running the organisation. As for not being aware the Post Office carried out their own prosecutions, that is ridiculous beyond words. She must have known how the company she was running worked.
|
As for not being aware the Post
>> Office carried out their own prosecutions, that is ridiculous beyond words. She must have known
>> how the company she was running worked.
>>
She gave the impression that she'd always worked at the boardroom level from day one of work.
|
>> She gave the impression that she'd always worked at the boardroom level from day one
>> of work.
I think there's something in that.
She would know that the Post Office would have its share of people with fingers in the till and that action would be taken against them. She had no reason, at least until it got messy, to know the minutiae of how people perceived as stealing from their employer were prosecuted.
If she needed to know for a meeting or whatever somebody would brief her.
|
|
I don't just mean at the PO but day one into the world of work in general. Probably the way she'll have been briefed from her legal team over the past few months.
|
"somebody would brief her" - which if she is to be believed often didn't happen.
Of course my sympathies lie more with those who suffered one way or another, but in my time watching the hearings there have been a few of them who I've felt were a lot more worthy of a long stretch than she appeared to me to be - and I get that she was in charge so the buck stops with her etc, and she should have asked more questions, but easy to say with hindsight really. There do appear to be things she was dishonest over but I don't think she's the worst.
AIUI there has always been something of a problem with a small number SPMs with their hands in the till - there was even discussion over "borrowing" overnight from the tills which seemed to be a known thing - so in an odd way the PO could be seen as having been right to consider that over a system fault, until of course faults were identified.
I reckon up to a certain time people were trying to avoid the PO washing its mucky laundry in public, which in the circumstances as it turns out was misguided but I suspect at the time they were acting in what they thought was the correct way, in their own best interests and those of the PO. Of course once it was reasonably confirmed there were IT problems they should have come clean about them, but instead a snowball effect had begun which they should have, but didn't, stopped.
I wonder how many people here have never stretched the truth a bit at work to avoid something blowing up in their face? Even if you haven't, I can see how one might, and never ever expect it to end up like this has (though, granted, my cover-ups wouldn't have put many people in jail!!).
|
>>I wonder how many people here have never stretched the truth a bit at work to avoid something blowing up in their face?
Hand on heart I couldn't swear to it, but my personal policy on cock ups that I could be held responsible for was *always* that bad news doesn't keep. In general I found that when I delivered bad news the focus was on what we could do about it rather than who was to blame.
What I did learn was to make sure that top level got to know about it. A couple of times my 'bad news' was suppressed by an immediate superior which leaves the bomb unexploded and adds cover up to the crime. CYA then becomes the priority.
Good news of course can be saved up for when it will do the bearer the most good.
|
You have to bear in mind, that part of the "sell" and cost benefit analysis of Horizon was to curb/ control /find theft.
So when it delivered..............
....
|
>> You have to bear in mind, that part of the "sell" and cost benefit analysis
>> of Horizon was to curb/ control /find theft.
>>
>> So when it delivered..............
>>
>>
>>
>>
That's perfectly true and you can understand how initially it was thought to be a highly effective system. But after a while it surely must have struck PO management that there seemed to be an extraordinarily high level of fraud being committed by people who had been thoroughly vetted before being allowed to take over or open a post office branch. That, along with the red flags that were being raised should have instigated an investigation into the Horizon system.
|
Malfeasance.
I wonder if anyone will be convicted?
|
|
Apparently although it seems to us that there should have been ample, 100 odd cases (or 500 or whatever) over a number of years did not ring alarm bells. I think I could understand that if it were simply someone's machine crashing but putting that many people in jail, even over a long time period, really shouldn't have gone unnoticed.
|
>> >> So when it delivered..............
>>
>> That's perfectly true and you can understand how initially it was thought to be a
>> highly effective system. But after a while it surely must have struck PO management that
>> there seemed to be an extraordinarily high level of fraud being committed ....
Isn't this the whole point. They KNEW the computer system was faulty and lead to false prosecutions. They KNEW that Fujitsu were tampering with the computer records and still used them as expert witnesses to say the system was foolproof.
The moment they realised the above, they should have stopped prosecutions and revisited previous prosecutions. Instead they just doubled down.
Evil.
|
Bates & others Vs Post Office Ltd
2019
Bates and 554 others took on the Post Office via "No Win No Fee" legal action where the "insurer" paid the lawyers in 555 SPMs lost.
The PO knew of the faulty Horizon system for 10 to 25 years
The Post Office spent £100m+ of our money (Government paid for PO Losses & Subsidies for years & years) on Defence Lawyers NOT including PO internal costs of researching for their lawyers.
As we know the PO lost and were roundly criticised by the court.
SPM s awarded £58m damages and the lawyers took £47m (+/-) leaving £20K each for the 555 SPMs.
Why spend £100m + on court to defend themselves when it was internally known that Horizon was the Guilty Party?
That said, prior to Horizon the PO prosecuted "hand in the till thefts" - typically single figures per year. Horizon installation saw around 50 per year and nobody asked why!
|
>> That said, prior to Horizon the PO prosecuted "hand in the till thefts" - typically
>> single figures per year. Horizon installation saw around 50 per year and nobody asked why!
Not excusing what went on subsequently but I suspect that PO thought a lot of hand in till stuff was going 'under the radar' and expected Horizon to bring more people to book.
|
|
I heard an advert on radio this morning, using his name and title to promote, what seemed like, some 'ambulance chasing' legal company for compensation claims.
|
|
Branson or the Post Office chap?
|
>> Branson or the Post Office chap?
Sir Alan Bates.
|
|
Unfortunate surname for a Post Master really :-) Or any kind of Master for that matter...
|
>> Unfortunate surname for a Post Master really
He refused the first offer of ennoblement (I believe), but accepted the second, I presume because others were being compensated. I'm not bothered about how much compo he got (he deserved it for his campaigning), but to join a bunch of ambulance chasers...................................................?
|
Perhaps he knows not everyone involved has been contacted and wants as many people as possible to claim.
Without ambulance chasers as it were, many might not have the resources to employ a solicitor to help them.
|
I'm surprised to learn there could well be many claimants under Horizon's predecessor, Capture.
Lord Arbuthnot's chasing that as well.
|
Post Office IT - Horizon - tyrednemotional
