Post Office - Horizon scandal

[RichA]

There was discussion a while ago about what offences the PO hierarchy might be tried for.
Misconduct in public office could fit what they've done. And it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. For the lives they've ruined and the lives ended under a presumption of guilt anything less doesn't seem adequate.

 

[Hobbit]

There was discussion a while ago about what offences the PO hierarchy might be tried for.
Misconduct in public office could fit what they've done. And it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. For the lives they've ruined and the lives ended under a presumption of guilt anything less doesn't seem adequate.

The more you watch, and I’ve not missed a session for months, the harder it gets to be objective with a suitable punishment. Equally, the more you watch, the easier it gets to identify the real criminals. Some PO staff are guilty of following orders, even though they knew it was wrong, but there are around half a dozen who deserve real jail time.

There are also some who appear to be getting off almost Scot free. Vennells wasn’t the first CEO during the prosecution phase. I think prosecutions had been happening for around 8 years before she arrived on the scene. How much flak has Adam Crozier, Vennells predecessor, received?

 

[Hobbit]

Yesterday’s session saw Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Postal Affairs, giving evidence. Unfortunately, the Inquiry hasn’t posted up the afternoon session yet, so apologies but my précis is done from memory without the option to keep jumping back and forth in the evidence.

There’s been 4 Post Office ministers giving evidence in the last week, the Baroness being by far the best of the bunch - thanks to Twitter(X), and the ability to connect with different people, I had a call with a retired Civil Servant from BEIS yesterday evening. He was in BEIS for around 15 years, and although he absolutely wouldn’t give any details about any specific issues he was quite happy to discuss the way the various ministers worked. The Baroness was very much on top of her brief. She saw through smokescreens in a flash. Her questioning was forensic, and the quality of the information she expected the Civil Servants to search out and provide had to be spot on. Her energy and her doggedness wore them out. He ‘loved’ working for her as he felt that she acted on the information they provided.

He also touched on how difficult it was to get anything out of the Post Office and the govt appointed non-executive directors. Although he wouldn’t name any of the non-executive directors, we’ve seen more than enough from the Inquiry to know who the non-executive directors have been batting for.

In that respect, the most damning piece heard yesterday was when the Baroness requested a meeting with the PO to discuss the (independent- haha) Swift Report about Horizon issues. She requested that she have a Senior Civil Servant with her who was from outside BEIS, and not influenced by the PO. This caused much consternation within the PO senior leadership team, who were very obstructive over this, and did not go down well with the non-exec directors. She was asked in the Inquiry why she wanted someone independent of all the history and issues. She felt the non-exec directors had lost sight of their independence and had got too close to the PO.

One thing that has come out in the last week is the ministers were changed far too often. They’d no sooner got their feet under the table, begin to understand the issues and the players involved and then be moved on.

 

[RichA]

One thing that has come out in the last week is the ministers were changed far too often. They’d no sooner got their feet under the table, begin to understand the issues and the players involved and then be moved on.

Is it safe to presume that their political experience and civil service briefings meant they recognised a career threatening UXB when it was put on their desk. Looks like it's just been serially and knowingly pushed down the line for the next generation to defuse.

 

[Hobbit]

Is it safe to presume that their political experience and civil service briefings meant they recognised a career threatening UXB when it was put on their desk. Looks like it's just been serially and knowingly pushed down the line for the next generation to defuse.

That’s a tough question. Bearing in mind ministers don’t necessarily choose their job, nor the term of office, in theory they have upwards of 5 years to get stuck into issues. It’s been a merry-go-round in recent years which will have impacted on resolving issues. But, equally, the PO scandal has been going on for 20+ years.

A comment I got last night, almost an excuse, is the Post Office is a trusted brand. There were top people managing it. They brought in independent barristers and commissioned independent reports. Why wouldn’t you, in the early days, trust them?

Baroness Neville-Wolfe articulated it really well. On the one hand you have top people managing it. You have government oversight with the non-executive directors. You have independent, top barristers and numerous independent reports and advice. Then you have the technical evidence, which cleared Horizon. But you have so many middle-class leafy suburban people suddenly getting prosecuted - it just doesn’t stack up.

 

[Hobbit]

Yesterday’s evidence was given by Margot James, Post Office minister, who followed Baroness Neville-Rolfe. From a very good minister to an empty vessel. What a waste of space…

Feel free to watch from 2 hours 54 minutes for a flavour of how not to manage a brief.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I've followed a bit of the Vince Cable questions today. The various ministers have shown how little they really do know about their dept. Almost entirely dependent on the civil servants briefing them. They are almost there for show only. Any minister that gets to know their brief, usually then gets moved on. It's always been that way but it doesn't mean it should stay that way.

 

[chrisd]

Thanks Brian for your further coverage as I only find time to dip in and out.

 

[Pants]

The various ministers have shown how little they really do know about their dept. Almost entirely dependent on the civil servants briefing them. They are almost there for show only. Any minister that gets to know their brief, usually then gets moved on. It's always been that way but it doesn't mean it should stay that way.

That's what made Yes Minister and, to a certain extent Yes Prime Minister, such great comedies. They were so close to real life.

 

[Hobbit]

Yesterday saw Sir Vince Cable giving evidence to the Inquiry. It appears that he had a healthy scepticism towards the PO from long before he became a minister. As a constituency MP, along with other MP’s, he challenged the PO over the closing of a significant number of sub post offices. His experiences were that the PO was an arrogant bully, often not even bothering to reply to letters.

Although as PO minister he asked a number of pertinent questions, via his Civil Servants, he was very much ‘managed’ by the PO board & the non-executive directors. His evidence was often littered with “could have, would have, should have,” but like the other ministers, he was quite ineffectual. However, there’s a growing school of thought that the boards of large corporations, whether privatised public services, water, rail etc, or wholly owned like the PO, just feel they can treat govt oversight with contempt knowing they will outlast the term of office of ministers.

As a side note, each of the ministers giving evidence this week have said they have contacted Dept of BEIS for copies of documents and their ministerial diary only to be told they’ve been sent for archiving and are unable to be found. Strangely enough, ministers involved in the contaminated blood scandal have also been unable to access documents and ministerial diaries. A cynic might suggest…

 

[Hobbit]

Today’s evidence was from Allan Leighton, Head of Royal Mail Group, followed by Martin Edwards, originally Chief of Staff to Paula Vennells and currently Group Strategy Director with additional responsibilities for the SubPostmasters.

Allan Leighton’s evidence didn’t really amount to much of anything, and was basically a tidy up as he’d given the majority of his evidence months ago.

Martin Edwards has just finished his session. Unfortunately, the YouTube vid isn’t up yet but I’ll edit this post later and add it.
Where to start is quite easy - large brandy required. I’ll start with my conclusion, and try and avoid a warning for swearing. He, like Rodric Williams, Angela van den Bogard, Chris Aujard & Jarnail Singh is on my list as a person of interest for the police and the CPS. Maybe it’s because he’s still with the PO he came across as a clone of Rodric Williams and very defensive.

As Chief of Staff to Paula Vennells he should(will) have read almost every document and report that was addressed to Vennells. Time and again he said he “hadn’t read that report.” How bizarre that he could give précis and briefings to Vennells without reading the reports. Perhaps he’d missed Vennells giving evidence but time and again she’d “received a briefing on that report.” If he hadn’t been a decent Chief of Staff he would have been bounced long ago, and he certainly wouldn’t have reached director level.

He tripped himself up a few times, and although he tried to recover those situations it was fairly obvious from the odd stutter that he had an OMG revelation. Time and again he came out with “I didn’t realise at the time.” What a crock! He knew exactly what was going on. As usual, the Core Participant’s barristers had a field day - it was beautifully brutal. He got roasted. Several times he tried to deflect and answer a different question to the one asked but Ed Henry KC just ripped into him.

I’ll post up the vid later with the timings for when Henry starts his questioning - - - the really juicy bit starts at 1 hour 16 mins…

 

[2blue]

Today’s evidence was from Allan Leighton, Head of Royal Mail Group, followed by Martin Edwards, originally Chief of Staff to Paula Vennells and currently Group Strategy Director with additional responsibilities for the SubPostmasters.

Allan Leighton’s evidence didn’t really amount to much of anything, and was basically a tidy up as he’d given the majority of his evidence months ago.

Martin Edwards has just finished his session. Unfortunately, the YouTube vid isn’t up yet but I’ll edit this post later and add it.
Where to start is quite easy - large brandy required. I’ll start with my conclusion, and try and avoid a warning for swearing. He, like Rodric Williams, Angela van den Bogard, Chris Aujard & Jarnail Singh is on my list as a person of interest for the police and the CPS. Maybe it’s because he’s still with the PO he came across as a clone of Rodric Williams and very defensive.

As Chief of Staff to Paula Vennells he should(will) have read almost every document and report that was addressed to Vennells. Time and again he said he “hadn’t read that report.” How bizarre that he could give précis and briefings to Vennells without reading the reports. Perhaps he’d missed Vennells giving evidence but time and again she’d “received a briefing on that report.” If he hadn’t been a decent Chief of Staff he would have been bounced long ago, and he certainly wouldn’t have reached director level.

He tripped himself up a few times, and although he tried to recover those situations it was fairly obvious from the odd stutter that he had an OMG revelation. Time and again he came out with “I didn’t realise at the time.” What a crock! He knew exactly what was going on. As usual, the Core Participant’s barristers had a field day - it was beautifully brutal. He got roasted. Several times he tried to deflect and answer a different question to the one asked but Ed Henry KC just ripped into him.

I’ll post up the vid later with the timings for when Henry starts his questioning - - - the really juicy bit starts at 1 hour 16 mins…

Looks like you're successfully keeping out of the strong Spanish Summer Sun, Brian. Am enjoying your summaries of this shocking episode.

 

[Hobbit]

Looks like you're successfully keeping out of the strong Spanish Summer Sun, Brian. Am enjoying your summaries of this shocking episode.

Aircon has been on 24/7 for 4 days. Too hot at present.

 

[Hobbit]

Yesterday’s evidence was from Neil McCausland, non-executive director appointed by Alice Perkins. Unfortunately, the Inquiry haven’t yet posted the vid so my observations are from the live viewing of the session, and I’ve been unable to go back for a second viewing of the pertinent bits.

I found it difficult to get a grasp of which side he was on. Time and again he would say “with hindsight we should have…” yet in the next breath he would say “Alice Perkins was very honest, and she and the board wanted to get to the truth…” He followed the Perkins/Vennells line that Susan Crichton deserved to be sacked due to incompetence yet the evidence from so many sources, and comments from the inquiring barristers, very much see Crichton as being honest and professional.

He also revealed, as has been obvious from other evidence, that various reports and legal advice was not shared with all board members yet big, strategic decisions were being attributed to the full board - there’s that inner circle again. Time and again he said evidence now shows, but would then revert to the party line of the board we’re doing the right things.

A very confusing session, almost as though two separate people were being interviewed. One (still) a fully fledged supporter of Perkins and the gang against the SPMR’s, the other wanting the truth and justice for the SubPostmasters. Gut instinct, it was like herding cats. Impossible to get a solid feel for the guy. He wasn’t slippery or slimy, he was inconsistent.

Edit; vid added.

 

[Hobbit]

Today’s session is from Susannah Storey - former Shareholder Executive / UK Government Investments Official. McCausland made mention of her yesterday, perhaps not in the best of lights. Think there’s a bit of history there. If the feeling is mutual, I wonder what she has to say about him…

 

[Robster59]

Today’s evidence was from Allan Leighton, Head of Royal Mail Group, followed by Martin Edwards, originally Chief of Staff to Paula Vennells and currently Group Strategy Director with additional responsibilities for the SubPostmasters.

Allan Leighton’s evidence didn’t really amount to much of anything, and was basically a tidy up as he’d given the majority of his evidence months ago.

Martin Edwards has just finished his session. Unfortunately, the YouTube vid isn’t up yet but I’ll edit this post later and add it.
Where to start is quite easy - large brandy required. I’ll start with my conclusion, and try and avoid a warning for swearing. He, like Rodric Williams, Angela van den Bogard, Chris Aujard & Jarnail Singh is on my list as a person of interest for the police and the CPS. Maybe it’s because he’s still with the PO he came across as a clone of Rodric Williams and very defensive.

As Chief of Staff to Paula Vennells he should(will) have read almost every document and report that was addressed to Vennells. Time and again he said he “hadn’t read that report.” How bizarre that he could give précis and briefings to Vennells without reading the reports. Perhaps he’d missed Vennells giving evidence but time and again she’d “received a briefing on that report.” If he hadn’t been a decent Chief of Staff he would have been bounced long ago, and he certainly wouldn’t have reached director level.

He tripped himself up a few times, and although he tried to recover those situations it was fairly obvious from the odd stutter that he had an OMG revelation. Time and again he came out with “I didn’t realise at the time.” What a crock! He knew exactly what was going on. As usual, the Core Participant’s barristers had a field day - it was beautifully brutal. He got roasted. Several times he tried to deflect and answer a different question to the one asked but Ed Henry KC just ripped into him.

I’ll post up the vid later with the timings for when Henry starts his questioning - - - the really juicy bit starts at 1 hour 16 mins…

Crikey, you're not wrong. They really take no prisoners. There are a lot of weasly words being used by those being asked the questions. No wonder you need a brandy before you sit down to listen to their responses.
Beware your sins will find you out!

 

[Hobbit]

Today’s session is from Susannah Storey - former Shareholder Executive / UK Government Investments Official. McCausland made mention of her yesterday, perhaps not in the best of lights. Think there’s a bit of history there. If the feeling is mutual, I wonder what she has to say about him…

In a bizarre way I enjoyed today’s session purely from the level of professionalism, transparency and absolute clarity Susannah Storey submitted her evidence and answered questions on it. Many years ago I interviewed for a Senior Ops Manager, a guy that was already an accomplished manager, and on that day I’m not sure who interviewed who. The level of concentration and focus required was mirrored today. I am goosed after today’s sessions and subsequent dipping back and forth to review the juicy bits. Storey was great to watch and listen to but the level of concentration required to listen to the subtleties of her evidence, and how the different threads within it linked together - oh my head.

A number of you following this thread will have read that I feel there was an inner circle within the board that made decisions and kept information from the rest of the board. To that end a brief explanation of a typical board in a large corporation is required as the terms used today could be confusing. The Chair, Alice Perkins, the CEO, Paula Vennells, the General Counsel, Chris Aujard and the Chief Financial Officer + one or two others will form the Senior Executive - the inner circle. After that there will be a number of directors with a more focused brief, e.g. Head of IT, Lesley Sewell, and Head of Criminal Law, Jarnail Singh. After that you get the non-exec directors. Occasionally, you will get a director from level two who piggy backs into the inner circle via a peer prodigy relationship - think Angela Van Den Bogard. In some cases their position is officially elevated to Senior Executive.

So how does the Senior Executive manipulate a board whilst still looking ‘honest?’ And all credit to the Barristers asking the questions and Storey for recognising it with the help of hindsight and the volume of documents she hadn’t previously seen. A prime example is the various agendas for board meetings shown today. The general topics are scheduled through the meeting with timings ‘expected’ for that subject. Specific, focussed topics like the Second Sight report will be listed at the bottom of the agenda with a subscript of “to be noted.” Question rarely get asked on “to be noted” subjects - a great way to hide awkward topics.

Storey had concerns over bugs and Second Sight but didn’t raise them at the board meeting as she trusted the Senior Executive. How do you stop someone who knows too much about a specific subject from speaking about it and embarrassing the Senior Executive? Susan Crichton was excluded from the board meeting in which her report about Second Sight was to be discussed, and sacked not long after.

Today was the last session in Phase 5&6 - thank god. Jason Beer KC draws it to a conclusion in the last 15 mins. In that conclusion he lists a number of witnesses who have submitted additional statements to those they’ve already given. One is a stand out, Steven Bradshaw, PO Investigator(@Billysboots )

Session 7 starts on the 23rd Sept, and I get to go find a few beers till it starts again. I will add the odd post before then, maybe a précis of Bradshaw’s statement, just to keep the pot bubbling.

 

[Hobbit]

The mess that is the current Post Office board, and have they actually learned anything in recent years…

The Chair of the Post Office, Henry Staunton, was sacked around the turn of the year by the Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch when he revealed that he’d been instructed by the govt to pause compensation payments. There followed a fair bit of mud slinging back & forth between him and Badenoch.

The CEO, Nick Read was forced to make a very public apology after saying that he believes at least half of those whose convictions have been quashed are still guilty in his eyes. Strangely enough, He’d already been forced to pay back £54,000 of his bonus which was linked to his handling of the Inquiry. He’s been given a sabbatical on full pay. Tim Parker, ex-chair of the PO was also asked if he agreed with the quashing of convictions. He said he couldn’t say either way till he’d read the judgements - they just don’t learn do they…

Alisdair Cameron, the Finance Director, has been given a £1.2m pay off to take early retirement after a spell of gardening leave following an explosive spat with Nick Read.

Ben Foat, General Counsel for the PO(Head of Law), is on a leave of absence with full pay. He was forced to make a very public apology following the revelation of a document at the Inquiry he’d sent to the PO investigators in which he racially profiled SubPostmasters. He’d used racist terms, “negroid types” and asked the investigators to group suspects based on racial features from the colonial era of the 1800’s. He’d also been subjected to severe criticism by the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, for late Disclosure of evidence to the Inquiry. Sir Wyn went further, saying that both written and oral evidence provided by Foat had clearly been provided by others - yet more perjury? He was recalled to appear before the Inquiry again last month but last minute illness meant it’s been postponed till the autumn.

A number of temporary appointments have been made to fill in for those that have left or who are on ‘leave.’ It’s perhaps a bit of a stretch to say the blood letting has started but it’s clear the revolving door is whizzing.

The quoted post above is from the 23rd July, giving an insight to the disarray amongst the PO leadership team.

And so it continues.

Martin Roberts, Group Chief Retail Officer, responsible for the 11,000 branches along with suppliers, marketing & customer service is leaving the PO to pursue other opportunities. Although only with the PO for 2.5yrs he brought lots of experience and professionalism to the board.

Katheryn Sharrett, interim Finance Director since Alisdair Cameron’s departure, see the quoted post above, is also now on an indefinite leave of absence.

Rumour has it Larry the Cat will be appointed soon.

 

[Hobbit]

For those following the Inquiry closely, the link below takes you to the written statements submitted by witnesses to the Inquiry. There’s a lot in the statements that wasn’t brought up in questioning. There’s several reasons behind that but a significant one is why bring a point up in which the witness incriminated themselves when to do so gives the witness the opportunity to ‘correct’ their statement.

I’ve been waiting on Steven Bradshaw’s revised statement, submitted just before the last phase closed. No sign of it yet. I’m expecting it to be quite juicy as he tries to worm his way out of the mess he created for himself when giving evidence to the Inquiry.

Evidence | Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk

 

[Hobbit]

For those waiting on Steve Bradshaw’s revised statement, it’s now been added to the Post Office Inquiry website. Nothing new revealed, just a few amendments and, er, clarifications. He’s threw the odd person under the bus and distanced himself from some evidence, especially if it was from another witness naming him.

And the timetable for the next phase is below. For those following the Inquiry, you will be aware that Ben Foat, General Counsel for the PO had to make a very public apology for racist documents he’d issued to the PO investigators - see post 775. Subsequent to that he has taken a leave of absence from his position, and is due back in front of the Inquiry in the autumn… but he doesn’t appear in the schedule???

Someone whose evidence might well be very revealing is that of Alisdair Cameron, ex-Chief Financial Officer. He was put on gardening leave following a very messy spat with Nick Read, CEO. Subsequently, he received a payout of £1.5m to resign. His previous session with the Inquiry(Day 140) was explosive.

Nick Read is also due to give evidence(3 days). I expect him to feel the full force of Jason Beer KC and his colleagues. Read has some serious questions to answer.

Day	Witness
Evidence Week 1
Monday 23 September	Gavin Ellison - YouGov Saf Ismail – Sub-postmaster (SPM) Non-Executive Director at Post Office Ltd
Tuesday 24 September	Saf Ismail – SPM Non-Executive Director at Post Office Ltd (continued) Elliot Jacobs – SPM Non-Executive Director at Post Office Ltd
Wednesday 25 September	Non-sitting day
Thursday 26 September	Calum Greenhow - Chief Executive of the National Federation of Sub postmasters (NFSP)
Friday 27 September	Amanda Burton – Non-Executive Director at Post Office Ltd Sir Martin Donnelly – former Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer at the Department of Business and Trade (Phase 5/6 evidence)
Evidence Week 2
Monday 30 September	TBC/Non-sitting
Tuesday 1 October	Henry Staunton – former Chair of Post Office Ltd Alisdair Cameron – former Chief Financial Officer of Post Office Ltd
Wednesday 2 October	Karen McEwan – Group Chief People Officer of Post Office Ltd Chris Brocklesby – Chief Transformation Officer of Post Office Ltd
Thursday 3 October	TBC
Friday 4 October	Rachel Scarrabelotti – Company Secretary of Post Office Ltd Veronica Branton – former Company Secretary of Post Office Ltd
Evidence Week 3
Monday 7 October	TBC/Non-sitting
Tuesday 8 October	Nigel Railton – Interim Chair of Post Office Ltd
Wednesday 9 October	Nick Read – Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd
Thursday 10 October	Nick Read – Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd
Friday 11 October	Nick Read – Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd
Evidence Week 4
Monday 14 October	TBC/Non-sitting
Tuesday 15 October	Mike Young – former Chief of Technology and Operations Services Director (Phase 5/6 evidence) Simon Oldnall – Horizon IT Director at Post Office Ltd
Wednesday 16 October	Tracy Marshall - Retail Engagement Director at Post Office Ltd Melanie Park - Central Operations Director at Post Office Ltd
Thursday 17 October	John Bartlett – Director of Assurance and Complex Investigations at Post Office Ltd Simon Recaldin – Remediation Unit Director at Post Office Ltd
Friday 18 October	TBC

Half Term 21 October - 1 November

Evidence Week 5
Monday 4 November	TBC/Non-sitting
Tuesday 5 November	Sarah Munby – former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Charles Donald – Chief Executive Officer of UK Government Investments
Wednesday 6 November	The Rt. Hon. Kevin Hollinrake MP – former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Business and Trade; former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy The Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch MP – former Secretary of State for the Department of Business and Trade
Thursday 7 November	Lorna Gratton – Shareholder Non-Executive Director of Post Office Ltd; UK Government Investments Official Sir Alex Chisholm KCB – former Chief Operating Officer and Permanent Secretary for the Cabinet Office
Friday 8 November	The Rt. Hon. Jonathan Reynolds MP - Secretary of State for the Department of Business and Trade The Rt. Hon. Gareth Thomas MP – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Business and Trade
Evidence Week 6
Monday 11 November	TBC/Non-sitting
Tuesday 12 November	Dame Sandra Dawson and Dr Katy Steward – Governance experts
Wednesday 13 November	Dame Sandra Dawson and Dr Katy Steward – Governance