rulefan
Tour Winner
Was that a 'not guilty' verdict or 'no further action' by the prosecution?
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
How do I think it will pan out?
Those PO employers ( all so obviously guilty of so many things) will retire and walk away with their pensions and bonuses living the comfy life so many could on,y dream of. The PO will get a slap on the wrist, and do a deal to accept corporate misconduct and pay ( or rather we will) a small fine which effectively means nothing going to those so deliberately wronged and punished.
I am afraid, I have lost all faith that justice will be done and compensation paid
Those PO employers ( all so obviously guilty of so many things) will retire and walk away with their pensions and bonuses living the comfy life so many could on,y dream of. The PO will get a slap on the wrist, and do a deal to accept corporate misconduct and pay ( or rather we will) a small fine which effectively means nothing going to those so deliberately wronged and punished.
I am afraid, I have lost all faith that justice will be done and compensation paid
The PO chose to withdraw the prosecution, which is deemed “inappropriate “ for private prosecutions. Withdrawing a private prosecution lays the prosecutor, the PO, open to a claim of frivolous prosecution.
On another issue, you asked a while ago about user passwords for branch terminals. The SubPostmasters are given their own password, and it is their responsibility to create passwords for staff. There is history of shared passwords and of passwords being written down and stuck to the wall.
The contaminated blood scandal. We lost a cousin to it in the early 90’s. It was known then and has only just been finally resolved in recent weeks. 30 years. A lot of them are dead…
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
Of course many aren't here (sorry your cousin was one of them), but there is no way the PO, Fujitsu or the Govt will allow a speedy resolution with correct punishments for ALL the guilty parties. They are all hoping this drags on and becomes lost in the background noise of World activities, Celebrity nonsense and anything else that crops up. They know the public has short memories and will accept anything if given a sweet.
I really do admire those fighting for justice, especially those so wrongfully punished by the PO, but I cannot see the right outcome ever happening.
It's ironic in that the reputation the PO high ups wanted to preserve is now in tatters and now many (like me) want nothing more to do with the PO and see it as a corrupt business as the people in control at the top are corrupt.
Some will consider that an extreme view, but for what those top bods has done is worthy of nothing more than a firing squad, and the longer they are left free to walk the street and even still in place at the PO is just rubbing more acid into the wounds.
This morning’s session with Patrick Bourke, Government Affairs & Policy director for the PO.
Mmm, another wordsmith whose replies are subject to interpretation. The questioning barrister has his work cut out getting answers to questions, often having to repeat a question, and advising Bourke his previous answer doesn’t answer the specific question.
However, in an earlier answer Bourke dates his knowledge of a specific issue with Horizon, yet in a later answer he quotes a date 3 years earlier. The barrister doesn’t pick him up on the dates. I wonder if that’s deliberate? If he pulls Bourke for it Bourke gets an opportunity to correct the record, apologising for a slip up. I’ve seen this at a number of sessions, i.e. a number of slip ups just left on record uncorrected. Those asking the questions are way too smart to miss stuff like this.
Sir Wyn is stepping in more than I’ve seen previously, and he is also having to repeat his own clarification questions.
The Beeb have also put out a very damning piece about Bourke’s evidence in the morning session.
Mmm, another wordsmith whose replies are subject to interpretation. The questioning barrister has his work cut out getting answers to questions, often having to repeat a question, and advising Bourke his previous answer doesn’t answer the specific question.
However, in an earlier answer Bourke dates his knowledge of a specific issue with Horizon, yet in a later answer he quotes a date 3 years earlier. The barrister doesn’t pick him up on the dates. I wonder if that’s deliberate? If he pulls Bourke for it Bourke gets an opportunity to correct the record, apologising for a slip up. I’ve seen this at a number of sessions, i.e. a number of slip ups just left on record uncorrected. Those asking the questions are way too smart to miss stuff like this.
Sir Wyn is stepping in more than I’ve seen previously, and he is also having to repeat his own clarification questions.
The Beeb have also put out a very damning piece about Bourke’s evidence in the morning session.
Below is this afternoon’s session with Patrick Bourke. It must be remembered that he is still a director with the Post Office. A significant number of his responses are very much corporate speak, and are more inline with brand protection than being absolute in the expression of the truth. Many of his answers are excruciatingly couched in language that could be construed as intentionally opaque. Time after time both the barrister and the Chair pull him for not answering the question asked.
Quite a large part of this afternoon’s evidence looks to drill down into when Fujitsu made the PO aware of the Helpdesk being able to change branch accounts. There’s an email string from 2016 that looks to manage the narrative having just been made aware of Fujitsu’s Key Users that had that ability. Bourke continually says that the PO had only just found out.
A look at post #542 in which Michael Rudkin, the SubPostmasters union rep, had visited Fujitsu in 2005, and what Fujitsu & the PO did after his visit.
I would recommend a quick look at the first question asked by the Core Participants solicitor at around 1hr 30mins. Brutal! And she totally nails him. He was well rattled and stuttering.
Quite a large part of this afternoon’s evidence looks to drill down into when Fujitsu made the PO aware of the Helpdesk being able to change branch accounts. There’s an email string from 2016 that looks to manage the narrative having just been made aware of Fujitsu’s Key Users that had that ability. Bourke continually says that the PO had only just found out.
A look at post #542 in which Michael Rudkin, the SubPostmasters union rep, had visited Fujitsu in 2005, and what Fujitsu & the PO did after his visit.
I would recommend a quick look at the first question asked by the Core Participants solicitor at around 1hr 30mins. Brutal! And she totally nails him. He was well rattled and stuttering.
Morning session with Lesley Sewell, Group IT & Information manager/director. The opening minutes are quite raw but as harsh as it sounds there’s a process to go through. Sewell is relatively late to the party, joining the PO in 2010. In effect she’s in the middle of it without the background/history of what went on before. By March 2011 she was receiving emails detailing branch discrepancies.
There’s a great example of what went on around 1:35. Branch data shows a shortfall of hundreds of pound. A hard count of cash shows a surplus of over £100.
In some instances it looks like Sewell wasn’t part of the inner circle. She’s not included in many meetings and email trails. Bit weird considering her position…
Great email from her to senior management in 2013 in which she says the bugs did affect balances. However, it does bring into question who told Second Sight of the bugs. Up until seeing this today, all the evidence is about Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu expert witness, telling Second Sight. Today’s evidence says it was someone in the PO that told Second Sight. Does that mean the PO learned this from the Balances & Mismatch bug, yet still they carried on with the prosecutions?
There’s a great example of what went on around 1:35. Branch data shows a shortfall of hundreds of pound. A hard count of cash shows a surplus of over £100.
In some instances it looks like Sewell wasn’t part of the inner circle. She’s not included in many meetings and email trails. Bit weird considering her position…
Great email from her to senior management in 2013 in which she says the bugs did affect balances. However, it does bring into question who told Second Sight of the bugs. Up until seeing this today, all the evidence is about Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu expert witness, telling Second Sight. Today’s evidence says it was someone in the PO that told Second Sight. Does that mean the PO learned this from the Balances & Mismatch bug, yet still they carried on with the prosecutions?
Just to pick out one comment from Lesley Sewell;
One thing she did recall was being contacted by PAULA VENNELLS on 4 occasions in 2020 and 2021 some 5 years after Miss Sewell resigned and also after VENNELLS had left Post Office. In the end Miss Sewell BLOCKED Vennells as she “did not feel comfortable with her contacting me”
There’s an unsavoury undercurrent running in the background that just appears occasionally, e.g. Michael Rudkin’s visit to Fujitsu - mentioned in post#542.
One thing she did recall was being contacted by PAULA VENNELLS on 4 occasions in 2020 and 2021 some 5 years after Miss Sewell resigned and also after VENNELLS had left Post Office. In the end Miss Sewell BLOCKED Vennells as she “did not feel comfortable with her contacting me”
There’s an unsavoury undercurrent running in the background that just appears occasionally, e.g. Michael Rudkin’s visit to Fujitsu - mentioned in post#542.
Today’s afternoon session with Lesley Sewell. Fiona Paige, one of the core participants solicitors, takes over at 34 mins. She immediately touches on cliques in the senior management team. It’s quite distressing from the outset of Paige’s questioning for Lesley Sewell. To be fair to Fiona Paige she recognises the level of distress she’s causing and, having seen her at a number of sessions, she is quite gentle.
Minute 48 sees the questioning about the Vennells’ phone call/messages I’ve mentioned in post#569.
There’s a good few bombshells in today’s sessions.
Minute 48 sees the questioning about the Vennells’ phone call/messages I’ve mentioned in post#569.
There’s a good few bombshells in today’s sessions.
After yesterday’s very raw sessions, today has been a blessed relief. Below is the morning session with Alisdair Cameron, Chief financial Officer & interim CEO for the PO.
The first 20 mins is about where and when he fitted into the structure, but also touches on the position of the PO and his view of it. He’s hugely scathing of the previous leadership team, and his witness statement/briefing docs are very different from what we’ve seen from other execs. He doesn’t just throw them under the bus, he then reverses over them.
The first 20 mins is about where and when he fitted into the structure, but also touches on the position of the PO and his view of it. He’s hugely scathing of the previous leadership team, and his witness statement/briefing docs are very different from what we’ve seen from other execs. He doesn’t just throw them under the bus, he then reverses over them.
This afternoon’s session with Alisdair Cameron pretty much followed this morning’s session. Where he could answer, he did. Where he couldn’t, he didn’t but did suggest who the Inquiry should speak to.
One of the names he gave was Jane MacLeod, General Counsel at the Post Office. Unfortunately, Jane MacLeod, who originally said she would assist the Inquiry, has moved abroad and is now refusing to cooperate in any way. There’s a bit more detail on the Beeb’s news page…
One of the names he gave was Jane MacLeod, General Counsel at the Post Office. Unfortunately, Jane MacLeod, who originally said she would assist the Inquiry, has moved abroad and is now refusing to cooperate in any way. There’s a bit more detail on the Beeb’s news page…
chellie
Tour Winner
Piece of
A new batch of potential dodgy convictions of SubPostmasters. Although there’s been a number of appeals there’s little information available. Basically, it’s ‘missing’ pension payments & pension slips. These prosecutions have been brought by the DWP. However, evidence is starting to surface that a number of investigations were carried out by the Post Office’s own investigators, and that the evidence is, in some cases, seriously flawed…
For those of you with a bit more than a passing interest in what’s going on but don’t like sitting through the full vids, PoliticsJoe uses YouTube as a hosting site for their vids. They, typically, post up highlight vids of around 10-15 minutes, and unlike other posters there’s no waffling commentary from them.
They do post up quite a lot of stuff on various topics, so you might have to scroll down a little to find relevant vids, but that takes seconds.
They do post up quite a lot of stuff on various topics, so you might have to scroll down a little to find relevant vids, but that takes seconds.
A busy and, hopefully, a damning week for the PO at the Inquiry. Today sees Alwen Lyons, Company Secretary at the PO, giving evidence. Paula Vennells on Wed/Thurs/Fri.
The PO’s defence started out as Horizon doesn’t have any bugs - long since disproven. Then it was the bugs don’t affect balances - long since disproven. Then it was there’s no “backdoor” into branch terminals - long since disproven. Then it was Fujitsu can’t alter balances - see below from the Channel 4 tapes.
Some of you may have heard the phone recordings revealed on Channel 4 a couple of months, involving Second Sight, Susan Crichton & Alwen Lyons.
Ian Henderson of Second Sight said: "What we're seeing from the emails is [Fujitsu] were getting instructions, in effect, directly from the helpdesk saying, 'Look, we need this fixed. You know, can you work your magic?' and the responses are going back, 'Yeah, it will be done in the overnight run tonight. We will change the balances or whatever'."
The PO’s defence started out as Horizon doesn’t have any bugs - long since disproven. Then it was the bugs don’t affect balances - long since disproven. Then it was there’s no “backdoor” into branch terminals - long since disproven. Then it was Fujitsu can’t alter balances - see below from the Channel 4 tapes.
Some of you may have heard the phone recordings revealed on Channel 4 a couple of months, involving Second Sight, Susan Crichton & Alwen Lyons.
Ian Henderson of Second Sight said: "What we're seeing from the emails is [Fujitsu] were getting instructions, in effect, directly from the helpdesk saying, 'Look, we need this fixed. You know, can you work your magic?' and the responses are going back, 'Yeah, it will be done in the overnight run tonight. We will change the balances or whatever'."
This morning’s session with Alwen Lyons, Company Secretary. Employed by the PO for 33 years, and like a number we’ve seen fully indoctrinated into the Borg. Early in the piece she says she doesn’t remember an awful lot but full credit to the barrister asking the questions for drawing out so many answers. Lyons remembers a huge amount, and contradicts herself on a number of occasions, e.g. the dates she knew when there were bugs.
As a Company Secretary, her responsibilities were way more than someone from the typing pool. Some people think a Company Secretary is just admin focused. They are in fact, usually, well up in the hierarchy.
Still waiting on the afternoon session being loaded up.
As a Company Secretary, her responsibilities were way more than someone from the typing pool. Some people think a Company Secretary is just admin focused. They are in fact, usually, well up in the hierarchy.
Still waiting on the afternoon session being loaded up.
OMG!
The afternoon session has been uploaded, and I’m partway through it. With ref to post#542, specifically Michael Rudkin’s visit to Fujitsu which both Fujitsu & the PO said didn’t happen. He visit crops up in an email between various PO senior managers in which they discuss how to spin the revelations made by Rudkin.
Double OMG! The PO haven’t provided all the emails, saying it was around the time that the email system was changed…. Yet lots of emails either side of that date have been made available. This is getting very messy.
Now questions being raised on meeting minutes being heavily amended outside of a meeting by 2 other managers, not the minute taker… whether the amendments add in correct information or not isn’t the issue. Minutes are amended at the next meeting by asking “is this a true and accurate record” and amended and accepted then.
The afternoon session has been uploaded, and I’m partway through it. With ref to post#542, specifically Michael Rudkin’s visit to Fujitsu which both Fujitsu & the PO said didn’t happen. He visit crops up in an email between various PO senior managers in which they discuss how to spin the revelations made by Rudkin.
Double OMG! The PO haven’t provided all the emails, saying it was around the time that the email system was changed…. Yet lots of emails either side of that date have been made available. This is getting very messy.
Now questions being raised on meeting minutes being heavily amended outside of a meeting by 2 other managers, not the minute taker… whether the amendments add in correct information or not isn’t the issue. Minutes are amended at the next meeting by asking “is this a true and accurate record” and amended and accepted then.
Last edited:
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
My prediction for. Vennells’ testimony;
I can’t recall
I wasn’t made aware
No one told me nuffin
Along with obfuscation, deflection and a few underlings being chucked under the bus and reversed over a couple of times.
I doubt that any accountability will be forthcoming.
I can’t recall
I wasn’t made aware
No one told me nuffin
Along with obfuscation, deflection and a few underlings being chucked under the bus and reversed over a couple of times.
I doubt that any accountability will be forthcoming.
Popcorn day… Paul’s Vennells first of 3 days before the Inquiry. It if follows the process of previous hearings it will be around 5 hours of tedious, boring step by step walk through of her evidence. No doubt there’ll be a few bombshells going off.
Just a side note on attending the Inquiry to give evidence, specifically Jane MacLeod moving abroad and now refusing to give evidence. It’s a statuary Inquiry in which individuals are ‘invited’ to give evidence. The invitation is a come or else. Failure to do so can lead to the Chair to issue a Section 21 compelling a witness to attend. Failure to act on a Section 21 can see the Chair apply to the courts under Section 36 for an order to attend. Once the Section 36 is granted, failure to do so will see a contempt of court charge.
Just a side note on attending the Inquiry to give evidence, specifically Jane MacLeod moving abroad and now refusing to give evidence. It’s a statuary Inquiry in which individuals are ‘invited’ to give evidence. The invitation is a come or else. Failure to do so can lead to the Chair to issue a Section 21 compelling a witness to attend. Failure to act on a Section 21 can see the Chair apply to the courts under Section 36 for an order to attend. Once the Section 36 is granted, failure to do so will see a contempt of court charge.
