Sorry but just to brag, the eldest daughter won this about 6-8 years back.
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
The scale of the Post Office Horizon scandal makes it extremely difficult to pull all the threads of what has gone on together, hence the Inquiry seeming to go on forever. Bear in mind when various investigations and reports first started to come to light it is no wonder that having the stamina and appetite to keep pushing on is both expensive and energy sapping.
The vid below pull in some of the key points, and like many of the independent vids available it barely seems to scratch the surface. Every key point, in reality, is more than a 5 minute investigation. The vid is a rapid fire bullet point of some of it - worth a watch if you’ve got the appetite for it.
A few key points, most are in the vid, some are from the Inquiry. One of them is sinister, and criminal in the extreme.
Two weeks later he wakes up to find a PO investigator in his bedroom. He’s accused of taking £44,000. All records of his visit to Fujitsu are deleted by Fujitsu and the Post Office, and he’s accused of making up the story of his visit and that he saw technicians accessing PO accounts. And his contract with the PO is terminated - However, he has emails between himself, the PO & Fujitsu about the visit. Frightening!!
The vid below pull in some of the key points, and like many of the independent vids available it barely seems to scratch the surface. Every key point, in reality, is more than a 5 minute investigation. The vid is a rapid fire bullet point of some of it - worth a watch if you’ve got the appetite for it.
A few key points, most are in the vid, some are from the Inquiry. One of them is sinister, and criminal in the extreme.
- 3,500 SubPostmasters have paid back shortfalls.
- Over 900 have been wrongly convicted.
- Countless SPMR’s have been made bankrupt.
- Countless SPMR’s have needed medical treatment.
- A number of families have been fractured, some horrendously.
- 4 SPMR’s have committed suicide!!
Two weeks later he wakes up to find a PO investigator in his bedroom. He’s accused of taking £44,000. All records of his visit to Fujitsu are deleted by Fujitsu and the Post Office, and he’s accused of making up the story of his visit and that he saw technicians accessing PO accounts. And his contract with the PO is terminated - However, he has emails between himself, the PO & Fujitsu about the visit. Frightening!!
The incident involving Mr Rudkin just illustrates the breathtaking arrogance of the PO and Fujitsu. I’ve yet to meet a single person who represents a group of individuals in any capacity who doesn’t retain every email they send, receive or are copied into.
The fact that the PO and Fujitsu thought they could cover his visit up is astonishingly arrogant and naive.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Has Michael Rudkin appeared at this inquiry yet or will he eventually?
If he hasn’t he certainly will. And it will be dynamite.
I can’t find him in the key witnesses that have been before the committee. However, the first tranche of days at the Inquiry saw the human impact statements in which those affected were in interviewed - typically, 25 minute slots. The vids for those have their names on the first slide for each vid. I’ve not been through them yet but at a quick glance there’s a good few that are known.
More recently, it’s been 2nd hearings for the key witnesses, some of which have “made corrections” for parts of their earlier statements.
The schedule for the next 2 weeks.
| Evidence Week 6 | |
| Tuesday 14 May | Mark Davies - former Group Communications & Corporate Affairs Director at Post Office Ltd |
| Wednesday 15 May | Patrick Bourke - former Government Affairs and Policy Director at Post Office Ltd |
| Thursday 16 May | Lesley Sewell - former Chief Information Officer at Post Office Ltd Martin Edwards - former Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive and Group Strategy Director at Post Office Ltd |
| Friday 17 May | Alisdair Cameron - Chief Financial Officer and former Interim Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd |
| Evidence Week 7 | |
| Tuesday 21 May | Alwen Lyons - former Company Secretary of Post Office Ltd |
| Wednesday 22 May | Paula Vennells - former Group Chief Executive Officer of Post Office Ltd |
| Thursday 23 May | Paula Vennells - former Group Chief Executive Officer of Post Office Ltd |
| Friday 24 May | Paula Vennells - former Group Chief Executive Officer of Post Office Ltd |
Beezerk
Money List Winner
Ooof that’s a tough shift for Paula Vennells, gonna be brutal I imagine.
I’m still confused why the BBC aren’t all over this like they should be, biggest scandal for decades and it’s tucked away behind menus on their website. If I didn’t read this thread I really wouldn’t have a clue the inquiry was still going on.
I’m still confused why the BBC aren’t all over this like they should be, biggest scandal for decades and it’s tucked away behind menus on their website. If I didn’t read this thread I really wouldn’t have a clue the inquiry was still going on.
Paula Vennells is very much seen as the senior baddie, and I’d be inclined to say she’s as guilty as sin. But the vast majority of prosecutions didn’t take place on her watch. It was under Adam Crozier’s leadership that the majority of the damage was done but he wasn’t the one called before the Commons Select committee. In that respect, there’s footage of her lying but Crozier appears to be getting a far easier ride.
Last edited:
Beezerk
Money List Winner
I didn’t know that, thank you.
chrisd
Major Champion
Cheers guys for the last few days of updates. I've been to a family wedding away so would have missed the stuff you've posted about.
An off the cuff thought. As forensic as this Inquiry is in drilling down into what went wrong, is it not now getting in the way of justice being served?
The docu-drama, and the subsequent uproar, shot a rocket up the govt’s behind. Legislation pushed through to quash convictions. The compensation scheme beefed up, but still interminably slow. But are the Police really doing anything, or are they waiting on the Inquiry finishing.
How about stopping the Inquiry now. Get the Police to charge every PO employee that’s been anywhere near knowing about it and get them in the dock.
The docu-drama, and the subsequent uproar, shot a rocket up the govt’s behind. Legislation pushed through to quash convictions. The compensation scheme beefed up, but still interminably slow. But are the Police really doing anything, or are they waiting on the Inquiry finishing.
How about stopping the Inquiry now. Get the Police to charge every PO employee that’s been anywhere near knowing about it and get them in the dock.
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
It’s become a bit of a double edged sword, once an enquiry this big gets going they need to see it out, the police won’t want to do anything under an active public enquiry.
But, at the same time I think it’s clear that there is enough clear and indisputable evidence of significant wrong doing by the PO and anyone involved in this that there should be no fear of prejudicing the criminal case.
What I think would be interesting to see is if most people's memories suddenly improve when sitting in a criminal dock and not just an enquiry. As we've said a number of times, when the smoking gun evidence in the form of emails and recorded calls are staring you in the face, "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" are not suitable defences.
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
I think the PO members are quite happy for it to drag on in the hope the general public forget about it and the clamour for justice, after the docu drama brought it right into the face of the public, is watered down.
Post Office inquiry live updates: Former PR boss Mark Davies gives evidence on Horizon scandal
Post Office inquiry live updates: Former PR boss Mark Davies gives evidence on Horizon scandal
www.bbc.co.uk
One of those days where we can follow the action via the bbc website. It's a former PR boss for the PO this morning. He is being refreshingly honest so far, no 'I don't recalls' at this stage.
Below is this morning’s session from the Inquiry in which Mark Davies, Group Comms director gives evidence. His memory of events is far better than many of his peers. However, as you would expect from a Comms director he is an excellent wordsmith, and a very intelligent guy. It took me a short while to get used to his style. Listen, not just hear, what he has to say. Many of his answers are quite subtle in their full meaning, and often with a different meaning than at first glance. He would make an outstanding politician.
There’s a piece around 55mins to 65mins that is a good example of a disingenuous reply. And much credit to the questioner who does an excellent job throughout of highlighting the PO’s mission to control the narrative in the courts and the media.
There’s a piece around 55mins to 65mins that is a good example of a disingenuous reply. And much credit to the questioner who does an excellent job throughout of highlighting the PO’s mission to control the narrative in the courts and the media.
Below is the afternoon session with Mark Davies, Group Comms director. As you would expect, the whole day’s questioning revolves around the messaging the PO used to try and control the narrative.
Minute 30-ish, in which Paula Vennells asks for the right words to give to the Commons Select committee about remote access is quite revealing, and his answer is a prime example of him trying to evade the obvious answer.
Just on the issue of remote access, who can, who can’t, transaction identifiers for remote(help desk) generated & spurious system generated transactions. I’ve followed the Inquiry on, almost, a dip in, dip out level. Even I know how and that transactions can be manipulated and what is and what isn’t given branch or system identifiers. The PO asked for unique identifiers to be added to system generated transactions, and Fujitsu told them it can’t be done. Yet there they are in 2015 formulating a message for the Commons Select committee to say it can be done. And then looking to find different wording for the Group Litigation court case in July 2016. Gobsmacked!
Edit: an abrupt end to the session. Sir Wyn Williams had had enough of Mark Davies. Methinks he saw through the disingenuous answers.
Minute 30-ish, in which Paula Vennells asks for the right words to give to the Commons Select committee about remote access is quite revealing, and his answer is a prime example of him trying to evade the obvious answer.
Just on the issue of remote access, who can, who can’t, transaction identifiers for remote(help desk) generated & spurious system generated transactions. I’ve followed the Inquiry on, almost, a dip in, dip out level. Even I know how and that transactions can be manipulated and what is and what isn’t given branch or system identifiers. The PO asked for unique identifiers to be added to system generated transactions, and Fujitsu told them it can’t be done. Yet there they are in 2015 formulating a message for the Commons Select committee to say it can be done. And then looking to find different wording for the Group Litigation court case in July 2016. Gobsmacked!
Edit: an abrupt end to the session. Sir Wyn Williams had had enough of Mark Davies. Methinks he saw through the disingenuous answers.
Last edited:
4LEX
Well-known member
This lot will get ripped apart in court under serious questioning.
RichA
Well-known member
If it ever gets to trial I seriously doubt most of them will put themselves in the position of having to answer questions, now they've had a taster at the inquiry. Also, the inquiry allows the guys asking the questions a lot of freedom they probably wouldn't get in a criminal court.
Both Computer Weekly and Private Eye have run a good number of articles about the Horizon scandal. There’s a mountain of reporting been done, some of which, in the early days was just padding to fill hints of allegations but it soon grew arms and legs with some stunning investigative journalism. Articles were being written, especially by Computer Weekly for 19 years. Which beggars the question why hasn’t it all been resolved before now?
The root cause for the delay in justice being served is quite simple. In each case the little guy has been taking on a massive corporate machine. Even when the SubPostmasters banded together, got the support of MP’s and private financiers they were taking on a corporate machine that has spent millions trying to kill off the story.
The earliest acquittal I can find was from way back in 2005. The defence team for that Subbie brought in their own expert witness, a Professor from a London university who specialised in IT security. Using an Horizon terminal in the PO’s own training facility he showed, not theorised, that backdoor access was easy. He showed that data could be corrupted, not just scrambled, and transaction values could be overwritten by system generated data clashes.
Edit: the PO dropped the prosecution when confronted with the prof’s findings.
If only the defence teams for each subsequent case had looked at previous cases. WAIT A MINUTE!! Wasn’t the prosecution, the PO, legally obliged under the Disclosure laws to share the information found by the London professor?
The root cause for the delay in justice being served is quite simple. In each case the little guy has been taking on a massive corporate machine. Even when the SubPostmasters banded together, got the support of MP’s and private financiers they were taking on a corporate machine that has spent millions trying to kill off the story.
The earliest acquittal I can find was from way back in 2005. The defence team for that Subbie brought in their own expert witness, a Professor from a London university who specialised in IT security. Using an Horizon terminal in the PO’s own training facility he showed, not theorised, that backdoor access was easy. He showed that data could be corrupted, not just scrambled, and transaction values could be overwritten by system generated data clashes.
Edit: the PO dropped the prosecution when confronted with the prof’s findings.
If only the defence teams for each subsequent case had looked at previous cases. WAIT A MINUTE!! Wasn’t the prosecution, the PO, legally obliged under the Disclosure laws to share the information found by the London professor?
Last edited:
