chrisd
Major Champion
I only caught the afternoon session but she seemed quite content to argue with the barristers. I don't think I'd liked to have worked with someone like her - a real cow!
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
I only caught the afternoon session but she seemed quite content to argue with the barristers. I don't think I'd liked to have worked with someone like her - a real cow!
As a typical pensioner, almost, I was awake at the usual 6am. For something to do for a couple of hours I had a scan read back through the thread, specifically looking at the headlines/bullet points people have picked out, and then filling out some of the points people made.
We all have gut instinct, intuition and a general does it feel right, does it feel wrong. You could add in a feel for natural justice, i.e. just because there’s a law doesn’t mean that law feels right. Sometimes things are just wrong…
Unsurprisingly, there’s plenty of evidence to support gut instinct/intuition. There’s an experiment called, if memory serves me right, the Iowa gambling game. Basically, with no prior knowledge, once you’ve got used to how the game is played your gut instinct tells you how to bet, and you will win. A life well lived will give you an internal radar that tells you when something is wrong.
Reading back through everything that’s gone before and being able to link so many bits of evidence that haven’t been known before… wow! We know it’s wrong on so many levels, we now know so many of the players and we know what many of them have done. Some are incompetent, some are morally bankrupt and some appear(edited) corrupt. It is genuinely shocking to see so many top level managers & directors behave in the way they do.
I was lucky. Most of my MD’s were excellent, the last one especially so. An example, he brought in a company ‘rule’ that all suppliers were paid within 30 days - believe me, that is rare as hen’s teeth. It’s not hard to behave with integrity, and long term it pays anyway.
We all have gut instinct, intuition and a general does it feel right, does it feel wrong. You could add in a feel for natural justice, i.e. just because there’s a law doesn’t mean that law feels right. Sometimes things are just wrong…
Unsurprisingly, there’s plenty of evidence to support gut instinct/intuition. There’s an experiment called, if memory serves me right, the Iowa gambling game. Basically, with no prior knowledge, once you’ve got used to how the game is played your gut instinct tells you how to bet, and you will win. A life well lived will give you an internal radar that tells you when something is wrong.
Reading back through everything that’s gone before and being able to link so many bits of evidence that haven’t been known before… wow! We know it’s wrong on so many levels, we now know so many of the players and we know what many of them have done. Some are incompetent, some are morally bankrupt and some appear(edited) corrupt. It is genuinely shocking to see so many top level managers & directors behave in the way they do.
I was lucky. Most of my MD’s were excellent, the last one especially so. An example, he brought in a company ‘rule’ that all suppliers were paid within 30 days - believe me, that is rare as hen’s teeth. It’s not hard to behave with integrity, and long term it pays anyway.
RichA
Well-known member
I feel like it's something that specifically blights the public sector. The more morally corrupt and/or narcissistically sociopathic they are, the higher they climb.
When you're potentially risking private shareholders' money there are probably more stringent checks and balances. If it's just the wellbeing and livelihoods of tens of thousands of pleb employees then personal progression and protection of reputation take precedent.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
The question in my mind is HOW and WHY did so many people allow this to happen or actively cause this to happen.
The HOW has been mostly answered for me even though the inquiry has several more weeks to run.
A main cause was the "untouchable" nature of Fujitsu UK. Completely unaccountable and unscrutinised while being given £billions of public money. Or so it seems to me.
PO having the power to bring prosecutions and the misuse of this power.
Failure of the judicial system to find fault in PO prosecuting so many postmasters.
But the WHY is something for me yet to be satisfactorily explained or even theorised/speculated.
Perhaps...
Money and a gain in self-aggrandisement. These seem to me to be the motives for the individuals involved.
To rise in status and been seen as successful above all other considerations of truth, honesty and seeking to do what's right. A loss of moral compass.
The HOW has been mostly answered for me even though the inquiry has several more weeks to run.
A main cause was the "untouchable" nature of Fujitsu UK. Completely unaccountable and unscrutinised while being given £billions of public money. Or so it seems to me.
PO having the power to bring prosecutions and the misuse of this power.
Failure of the judicial system to find fault in PO prosecuting so many postmasters.
But the WHY is something for me yet to be satisfactorily explained or even theorised/speculated.
Perhaps...
Money and a gain in self-aggrandisement. These seem to me to be the motives for the individuals involved.
To rise in status and been seen as successful above all other considerations of truth, honesty and seeking to do what's right. A loss of moral compass.
Just a brief reminder on who carried out the prosecutions. Whilst the PO prosecuted subbies in England & Wales, it isn’t done that way in Scotland & Northern Ireland. Evidence gained by the PO investigators in Scotland is passed to Prosecutor Fiscal, and the decision to prosecute is decided by him/her. Evidence gained by PO investigators in Northern Ireland is passed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and, similarly, the decision to prosecute was not made by the PO.
That in itself should have raised red flags as there were a number of acquittals in those countries.
As to your “why” question. We can only speculate as to the motives of the individuals involved. What has come through as each individual has been questioned is there were a few individuals on the PO side who disagreed with the tack the PO were taking and it cost them their job/career, or in the case where they were a 3rd party working for the PO their contract was terminated.
Susan Crichton, General Counsel for the PO, was treated horribly, really horribly, by Alice Perkins & the board for refusing to toe the party line and for choosing to honour her responsibilities to her legal profession. She supported Second Sight, and for that she was unceremoniously booted. She was bullied.
Lesley Sewell, Chief Information Officer for the PO, was very much marginalised for highlighting the issues with Horizon. To watch her breakdown in the Inquiry as she relived how Perkins and the board treated her was heartbreaking.
James Arbuthnot, now Lord Arbuthnot, touched on the culture in the PO when he shared the details of a meeting he had with Paula Vennells, Van Den Bogerd and Chris Aujard. Vennells seemed cowed by Bogerd & Aujard, and she went back on things previously agreed with Lord Arbuthnot. Perkins made mention of Vennells not being strong enough with the board members - after 2 days of hearing Perkins my view is that Perkins led that culture and the board took that lead from her.
As to the independent reports commissioned by the PO to support the Horizon system. Second Sight were unceremoniously booted for highlighting the bugs, and Deloitte were also told to rewrite their report in favour of the system - independent? Deloitte’s report became a desktop review full of marketing hype drawn from Fujitsu’s description of the system. Perkins, in her evidence to the Inquiry, said she wished she’d seen the report for what it was when it was produced. Excuse me but it was her and her board that asked for the rewrite. A strong character and very articulate as she weaved her web to the Inquiry but when you drill down through what she was saying… Mmm, just who, knowingly, led the gang through its most heinous phase? I think the Inquiry may well have found the chief culprit.
cliveb
Head Pro
I believe you definitely were lucky. Typically the only ones who reach the top tend to be ruthless and uncaring. It's a personality trait that seems to be necessary for success in large organisations. There are exceptions, but they are in a small minority.
I have only ever worked in the private sector, and have seen exactly the same behaviour in board level management there. I think perhaps the only difference is that in the private sector failure is rapidly followed by dismissal, whereas those in the public sector somehow seem to remain in their positions regardless.
If you really want to get angry, have a watch of the early vids from the Inquiry in which the victims impact statements are shown. I’ve watched a few… horrific!
Just had a spare half hour, and thought why not have a quick trawl of a few SubPostmasters who were convicted to see how much the PO had stolen from them. The first four names paid, £110,000 - £321,000 - £57,000 - £37,000. Over half a million from the first four!
I saw an article several weeks ago about how much the PO was raking from shortfall payments from SubPostmasters. I didn’t post it up because it was unbelievably high, and I couldn’t qualify it.
There’s currently 3,500 claims in to the PO for recompense. Pick a daft figure and say the average is £10,000. That’s £35,000,000. And that doesn’t cover compensation. Just imagine what the compensation would be for 6 months in jail…
However, there was a news piece in which a SubPostmaster revealed she’d paid £32,000 to the PO, and been offered £12,000. The guy who paid the £110,000 has been offered £17,000. Hopefully the new scheme is quicker and pays in full.
I saw an article several weeks ago about how much the PO was raking from shortfall payments from SubPostmasters. I didn’t post it up because it was unbelievably high, and I couldn’t qualify it.
There’s currently 3,500 claims in to the PO for recompense. Pick a daft figure and say the average is £10,000. That’s £35,000,000. And that doesn’t cover compensation. Just imagine what the compensation would be for 6 months in jail…
However, there was a news piece in which a SubPostmaster revealed she’d paid £32,000 to the PO, and been offered £12,000. The guy who paid the £110,000 has been offered £17,000. Hopefully the new scheme is quicker and pays in full.
It's this type of thing that adds to the anger. A normal person would sit down and see those figures and say that is wrong. The starting point is refunding all money paid, the starting point. Then you get into discussions on compensation. How can politicians, civil servants, whoever runs these schemes not see this?
The arguing between Lord Grabiner KC and Jason Beer KC this afternoon was on another level. Lord Grabiner would say “I know where you’re going with this…” Half the time I wasn’t on the same page. These guys are exceptional. A lot of it revolved around the application to have the judge recused from one of the trials, and to appeal the judgement against the PO. It got very tetchy in the last half hour. It looked like the two KC’s, one of which was Grabiner, had taken a personal dislike to the judge, and the criticisms were very harsh.
Jason Beer KC tried to get him to admit it had become personal but Grabiner was having none of it. To be honest, it was as dull as dishwater. Not sure how it furthers the Inquiry.
Jason Beer KC tried to get him to admit it had become personal but Grabiner was having none of it. To be honest, it was as dull as dishwater. Not sure how it furthers the Inquiry.
This morning’s session with Anthony de Garr Robinson KC. De Garr Robinson is yet another independent barrister brought in by the PO, very much akin to when the PO brought in Simon Clarke KC & Brian Altman KC. Once again we see advice given by a barrister to the PO not acted upon. And once again we see a barrister who didn’t receive all the necessary documents needed to help formulate that advice. De Garr Robinson is very open, very professional and “very cross.”
Edit: the last 30mins are rather fruity.
Edit: the last 30mins are rather fruity.
Last edited:
This morning saw Tom Beezer, partner at Womble Bond Dickinson, giving evidence to the Inquiry. He was very much the lead solicitor in the prosecution of Lee Castleton. He was also very much involved in applying for Justice Fraser’s recusal.
Why didn’t Lee Castleton win his case? Basically because the prosecution team didn’t play fair. There was a failure to Disclose. The prosecution team stretched the case out to force Castleton to concede due to lack of funds.
What didn’t the PO Disclose? Evidence of accounting errors specific to Castleton’s Horizon terminal. The PO were very concerned that if they couldn’t get a guilty plea out of Castleton they would lose the case. In a Mexican Standoff, Castleton blinked first. It cost him £321,000 he paid to the PO + his own costs. It was a ‘dirty’ win for the PO, and a complete miscarriage of justice on so many levels.
Beezer’s responses were often, “well it might have been but it might not have been.” All too often he gave a “yes” and “no” to the same question. Yet another solicitor who’d lost sight of justice, focusing on the win at all costs.
Why didn’t Lee Castleton win his case? Basically because the prosecution team didn’t play fair. There was a failure to Disclose. The prosecution team stretched the case out to force Castleton to concede due to lack of funds.
What didn’t the PO Disclose? Evidence of accounting errors specific to Castleton’s Horizon terminal. The PO were very concerned that if they couldn’t get a guilty plea out of Castleton they would lose the case. In a Mexican Standoff, Castleton blinked first. It cost him £321,000 he paid to the PO + his own costs. It was a ‘dirty’ win for the PO, and a complete miscarriage of justice on so many levels.
Beezer’s responses were often, “well it might have been but it might not have been.” All too often he gave a “yes” and “no” to the same question. Yet another solicitor who’d lost sight of justice, focusing on the win at all costs.
This afternoon’s session sees Matthew Lenton, Post Office account Document Manager at Fujitsu. Basically, he’s a librarian providing documentation to the Post Office. Typically, the PO would request Fujitsu to supply things like Known Error Logs(KELs) of any issues. There’s been some very interesting answers to the questions put to Lenton.
It would very much appear that Fujitsu weren’t squeaky clean when it came to passing KELs onto the PO. It would appear that although the system automatically deleted KELs after a certain period, “deleted” is a misnomer. They were stored in the archive and could be retrieved. But Fujitsu were, on occasion, telling the PO deleted KELs can’t be retrieved. On other occasions they would supply deleted KELs from the archive. In some instances, if it was a high profile case, the KEL couldn’t be found, on purpose - one Fujitsu manager asked if a particular KEL needed to stay lost.
Edit: much of the technical evidence supplied by Fujitsu was a collaboration from various engineers. Sounds reasonable… however, Gareth Jenkins had been discredited as an expert witness yet he was still providing quite a lot of the technical evidence, passing it to other engineers who put their name to it. Yet more proof of tainted evidence used to convict the SubPostmasters.
It would very much appear that Fujitsu weren’t squeaky clean when it came to passing KELs onto the PO. It would appear that although the system automatically deleted KELs after a certain period, “deleted” is a misnomer. They were stored in the archive and could be retrieved. But Fujitsu were, on occasion, telling the PO deleted KELs can’t be retrieved. On other occasions they would supply deleted KELs from the archive. In some instances, if it was a high profile case, the KEL couldn’t be found, on purpose - one Fujitsu manager asked if a particular KEL needed to stay lost.
Edit: much of the technical evidence supplied by Fujitsu was a collaboration from various engineers. Sounds reasonable… however, Gareth Jenkins had been discredited as an expert witness yet he was still providing quite a lot of the technical evidence, passing it to other engineers who put their name to it. Yet more proof of tainted evidence used to convict the SubPostmasters.
Last edited:
chrisd
Major Champion
Andrew Parsons today, and I reckon he may be accused of being very involved in withholding known Horizon faults until he had no choice to divulge Gareth Jenkins issues
And of using Common Interest Privilege to stop Disclosure.
Well, where to start after listening to Andrew Parsons over the last two days? I’ll start with pinching from my final sentence of post#692, “yet another solicitor who’s lost sight of justice, focusing on the win at all costs.” Even when rock solid evidence was pointed out to him, he twisted words and pretty much never acknowledged a single point. He shifted blame to others so easily. His memory was laser sharp in many areas but the “couldn’t recall” was trotted out when some things were getting messy.
On a personal level, I found him quite arrogant, odious and thoroughly unpleasant. But that’s just my opinion.
Below is the vid from this morning, the second morning of his evidence. Sam Stein KC comes in part way through asking questions on behalf of the Core Participants. As usual, he’s not gentle. Worth dipping in for a listen.
RichA
Well-known member
I'm not defending anyone on the Post Office prosecuting side - this is just an observation about an issue with our legal system...
A criminal law solicitor's job is to win for their client, not seek a lay person's idea of justice. To them, justice is whatever the winner of their little contest convinces a jury to believe.
They are supposed to play by the rules of the law, but many become such arrogant narcissists because of the nature of our adversarial legal system that they just need to beat the other guy by any means they can get away with.
I'm not suggesting that they all lie and cheat, but those high profile KCs currently speaking up for the postmasters and postmistresses probably didn't get where they are without defending people they knew were guilty and prosecuting people they knew were innocent. Earlier in their careers that was their job.
chrisd
Major Champion
whilst I didn't watch all of the video, I fully agree with you Brian. I do like Sam Stein KC, very clever and can be pretty brutal. If anyone Parsons deserves doing time, I really think this odious apology of a man has ignored the lawss of disclosure to a level that the enquiry should make sure he pays a high price
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Sir Alan Bates............well played to those responsible.
The attached vid, 14 minutes, is made up of a number of clips from Andrew Parsons evidence. There are only from the questions asked by one of the Core Participants solicitors. For those that don’t watch the vids in full, Andrew Parsons faced around 8 hours of questioning, the majority of which was from the Inquiry’s own barristers. Imagine 8 hours worth of what you see in the 14 minute vid!
