Nick Read, the current CEO at the PO, is before the Inquiry for 3 days starting Wednesday. Below is an article from today’s Times.
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
Although the current phase, Phase 7, has only been up and running for a few weeks we’ve already seen the odd bombshell. The remit of Phase 7 is to look at the current practices and procedures in the hope that it reveals a new culture exists within the PO. So far, things don’t look great…
“Whistleblowers,” attached is an article published yesterday by Computer Weekly. I’ll let it speak for itself.
www.computerweekly.com
“Whistleblowers,” it was revealed last week at the Inquiry that a Senior Executive has been instructing staff to destroy documents, evidence, that might be helpful to the Inquiry. Must be some shocking details in those documents if someone feels they need destroying… And who is the director tasked with ensuring the requested documents reach the Inquiry? None other than Ben Foat, Head of Law at the PO, and it was him that had to apologise for his deeply offensive, racist comments. Conspiring to pervert the course of justice? Sir Wyn Williams, Chair of the Inquiry has already roasted him at Gas Mark 7 over late Disclosure & missing documents. Foat is due back in front of the Inquiry in the coming weeks.
“Whistleblowers,” attached is an article published yesterday by Computer Weekly. I’ll let it speak for itself.
Whistleblowers call out ongoing cover-up by Post Office CEO in explosive letter | Computer Weekly
A letter from current Post Office staff to MPs, statutory inquiry chair Wynn Williams and the Post Office chairman demands their intervention and investigation.
“Whistleblowers,” it was revealed last week at the Inquiry that a Senior Executive has been instructing staff to destroy documents, evidence, that might be helpful to the Inquiry. Must be some shocking details in those documents if someone feels they need destroying… And who is the director tasked with ensuring the requested documents reach the Inquiry? None other than Ben Foat, Head of Law at the PO, and it was him that had to apologise for his deeply offensive, racist comments. Conspiring to pervert the course of justice? Sir Wyn Williams, Chair of the Inquiry has already roasted him at Gas Mark 7 over late Disclosure & missing documents. Foat is due back in front of the Inquiry in the coming weeks.
Just a brief point from yesterday’s hearing. The morning session saw the interim Chair of the PO giving evidence. It didn’t start well for him. He gave a précis of how robust Horizon is now and the how good the relationship is with the SubPostmasters. Maybe he hasn’t been following the Inquiry very well, maybe he was poorly briefed or maybe he was exercising a bit of spin.
Prior to Phase 7 starting, the Inquiry asked YouGov to conduct a survey of current & past SubPostmasters. 74% of current SubPostmasters have had at least one shortfall in the last year. 39% of those who had the shortfall have covered it out of their own pocket, the majority of which have paid in excess of £200. The PO is still enforcing the clause in the contract that the subpostmasters pay for any shortfall. The 41% who haven’t paid up are either in dispute with the PO or are already being prosecuted.
I appreciate that not all subbies replied to the survey but 74% with shortfalls, and 41% in dispute… it just beggars belief.
Today, tomorrow & Friday sees Nick Read, CEO, before the Inquiry. Nothing too controversial yet but we got a flavour of his character, previously evidenced when he was before the Commons Select committee. As Jason Beer KC led him through his CV and responsibilities, Read twice said he was running the public Inquiry… really?
Prior to Phase 7 starting, the Inquiry asked YouGov to conduct a survey of current & past SubPostmasters. 74% of current SubPostmasters have had at least one shortfall in the last year. 39% of those who had the shortfall have covered it out of their own pocket, the majority of which have paid in excess of £200. The PO is still enforcing the clause in the contract that the subpostmasters pay for any shortfall. The 41% who haven’t paid up are either in dispute with the PO or are already being prosecuted.
I appreciate that not all subbies replied to the survey but 74% with shortfalls, and 41% in dispute… it just beggars belief.
Today, tomorrow & Friday sees Nick Read, CEO, before the Inquiry. Nothing too controversial yet but we got a flavour of his character, previously evidenced when he was before the Commons Select committee. As Jason Beer KC led him through his CV and responsibilities, Read twice said he was running the public Inquiry… really?
Well, 2 hours 15 minutes into Nick Read’s session… it’s very, very juicy. Jason Beer KC & Sir Wyn Williams are absolutely on their game. 3 really hairy moments already, one of which is an absolute pearler. Read was asked about a term he used in reference to the investigators, “the untouchables.” Had he used that term? “No.” Beer then quoted Staunton, ex-chair, saying the Read had used it in both a private conversation & in a board meeting. “Was Staunton correct?” “No he was incorrect.” Saf Ismail, Non-exec director, said you used it in a board meeting. “Was he incorrect.” “Yes he was incorrect.” Elliot Jacobs, non-exec director, said you used it in a private conversation & in a board meeting. Was he incorrect? “Yes he was incorrect.”
Read is very good at giving a non-answer. Sir Wyn Williams isn’t shy in asking Read to focus on the subject of the question and answer the question asked.
To be honest, posting up everything Read is being picked up on would lead to excessively long posts.
Read is very good at giving a non-answer. Sir Wyn Williams isn’t shy in asking Read to focus on the subject of the question and answer the question asked.
To be honest, posting up everything Read is being picked up on would lead to excessively long posts.
Last edited:
That ends the morning session.
The “untouchables” comment in the post above comes up again. Saf Ismail & Elliot Jacobs, non-exec directors, met with Nick Read to discuss the performance & behaviour of 3 individuals, including Ben Foat. Both Ismail & Jacobs follow up the meeting with emails to Read expressing further concerns, especially the use of “untouchables” by Read. Read dodges it by replying to a different part of the question from Beer but it’s clearly now on record in an email. And Read sent the in-confidence emails from Jacobs & Ismail onto the 3 individuals - you can imagine the flak
Another revelation was a letter from a retired PO investigator to the PO board in which he discusses sleepless nights following evidence of bugs etc. being revealed through the Inquiry. That in itself is understandable. However, he makes mention of performance related bonuses, based on successful prosecutions and monies recovered, that were clearly falsely earned. Personally, I’m appalled at a bonus that focuses on a prosecution, not finding the truth. I wonder how many, if any, investigators chased their own bonus rather than ensuring they got to the bottom of shortfalls.
The morning session concluded with the contentious issue of the PO staffing the remuneration team with 35 people who had been central to the prosecutions. According to Read, this was addressed early in the process… it’s amazing how many subbies have raised the issue when it had been addressed so early.
A comment made by Read was the consternation caused at senior levels by Steve Bradshaw’s performance at the Inquiry. Maybe accidentally missed by Beer or, as often happens, deliberately left on record. Surely the greater issue is what Bradshaw revealed! Bradshaw not only showed his own character, he also showed what the “untouchables” were allowed to do.
The “untouchables” comment in the post above comes up again. Saf Ismail & Elliot Jacobs, non-exec directors, met with Nick Read to discuss the performance & behaviour of 3 individuals, including Ben Foat. Both Ismail & Jacobs follow up the meeting with emails to Read expressing further concerns, especially the use of “untouchables” by Read. Read dodges it by replying to a different part of the question from Beer but it’s clearly now on record in an email. And Read sent the in-confidence emails from Jacobs & Ismail onto the 3 individuals - you can imagine the flak
Another revelation was a letter from a retired PO investigator to the PO board in which he discusses sleepless nights following evidence of bugs etc. being revealed through the Inquiry. That in itself is understandable. However, he makes mention of performance related bonuses, based on successful prosecutions and monies recovered, that were clearly falsely earned. Personally, I’m appalled at a bonus that focuses on a prosecution, not finding the truth. I wonder how many, if any, investigators chased their own bonus rather than ensuring they got to the bottom of shortfalls.
The morning session concluded with the contentious issue of the PO staffing the remuneration team with 35 people who had been central to the prosecutions. According to Read, this was addressed early in the process… it’s amazing how many subbies have raised the issue when it had been addressed so early.
A comment made by Read was the consternation caused at senior levels by Steve Bradshaw’s performance at the Inquiry. Maybe accidentally missed by Beer or, as often happens, deliberately left on record. Surely the greater issue is what Bradshaw revealed! Bradshaw not only showed his own character, he also showed what the “untouchables” were allowed to do.
The afternoon session with Nick Read wasn’t quite so obviously damning as this morning’s session, although it almost became a sport at one point. Jason Beer KC would ask a question, then Read would give a long winded answer. Beer would then have an email displayed that contradicted Read’s answer. And then the process would be repeated. As the day has progressed you could pick out Read’s ‘tells,’ the most obvious of which was a lovely shade of puce he would go when Beer had him on the run.
The session moved onto recent/current prosecutions. True to their word, the PO are not ‘personally’ prosecuting anyone. However, where Horizon is showing shortfalls they are gathering evidence (where does that shortfall appear? Horizon), including visits from their own investigators, and passing it on to the Police. At this point Read brought up the Common Issues judgement laid down by Justice Fraser. The judgement is especially damning throughout its 1,000 paragraphs. Read said that there were elements of the judgement that supported the robustness of the current version of Horizon.
At this point Sir Wyn stepped in and said, “Justice Fraser’s judgement is sacrosanct. Be careful where you go with this, and that applies to you too Mr Beer.” Bearing in mind the PO tried to have Justice Fraser recused from an appeal. And a number of executives, including Read earlier today, have been before the Inquiry and continued to dispute the judgement, Sir Wyn was having none of it.
This was then superbly linked in to a failed attempt at a prosecution. The process is the PO gathers what evidence it can, triggered by the Horizon system showing a shortfall. They pass it onto the City of London police. The PO contacted Fujitsu asking them to provide an expert witness statement. Fujitsu’s response was they are not seen as an independent expert witness, and they would not provide anything to the PO. The response also went on to question whether or not the culture within the PO had changed. However if requested by the Police they would provide everything they have to an independent expert of the Police’s choosing.
This led to a swapping of emails and letters between the PO and Fujitsu, culminating in a meeting being arranged between the PO’s senior executives responsible for the prosecution and Fujitsu’s team. Read didn’t attend as he was preparing for the Inquiry. Beer asked if he had been appraised of the meeting and any decisions reached. Read said that the meeting was very cordial and issues had been resolved going forward…. And then Beer showed the email from Fujitsu to the PO/Read sent following the meeting.
Silence, and an increasingly reddened face. Patterson, CEO of Fujitsu Europe, did not pull a single punch. The PO get nothing outside of technical support for faults for the next 3 years, when the contract ends. And at which point Fujitsu will not take on the PO as a customer. Further to that he was damning in his criticism of the obvious continuation of the culture that has got the PO into the mess it’s in. In terms of how CEO’s ‘talk’ to each other, the sort of language used is reserved for minions so that the CEO’s can step in to retrieve a situation. That isn’t going to happen between the PO and Fujitsu.
As for the failed prosecution, the Police replied that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. And the PO’s response to the Police was to send a very lengthy letter quoting bits of Justice Fraser’s judgement in which Justice Fraser had said the new version of Horizon was more robust than previous versions. The quoted pieces had been taken out of context and weaved into the PO’s own script. Beer went through the letter pulling out the comments from Justice Fraser’s judgement and asked Read if he was party to or aware of the letter that had been sent to the Police. Sir Wyn stepped in with a few comments about Justice Fraser’s judgement being sacrosanct and asked ‘how is more robust defined. Does it mean better than the previous version but not robust?” The question was left hanging, but he made his point.
I wonder who penned that letter to the Police? Who would be far enough up the chain to do it, and who would have detailed knowledge of the judgement?
The session moved onto recent/current prosecutions. True to their word, the PO are not ‘personally’ prosecuting anyone. However, where Horizon is showing shortfalls they are gathering evidence (where does that shortfall appear? Horizon), including visits from their own investigators, and passing it on to the Police. At this point Read brought up the Common Issues judgement laid down by Justice Fraser. The judgement is especially damning throughout its 1,000 paragraphs. Read said that there were elements of the judgement that supported the robustness of the current version of Horizon.
At this point Sir Wyn stepped in and said, “Justice Fraser’s judgement is sacrosanct. Be careful where you go with this, and that applies to you too Mr Beer.” Bearing in mind the PO tried to have Justice Fraser recused from an appeal. And a number of executives, including Read earlier today, have been before the Inquiry and continued to dispute the judgement, Sir Wyn was having none of it.
This was then superbly linked in to a failed attempt at a prosecution. The process is the PO gathers what evidence it can, triggered by the Horizon system showing a shortfall. They pass it onto the City of London police. The PO contacted Fujitsu asking them to provide an expert witness statement. Fujitsu’s response was they are not seen as an independent expert witness, and they would not provide anything to the PO. The response also went on to question whether or not the culture within the PO had changed. However if requested by the Police they would provide everything they have to an independent expert of the Police’s choosing.
This led to a swapping of emails and letters between the PO and Fujitsu, culminating in a meeting being arranged between the PO’s senior executives responsible for the prosecution and Fujitsu’s team. Read didn’t attend as he was preparing for the Inquiry. Beer asked if he had been appraised of the meeting and any decisions reached. Read said that the meeting was very cordial and issues had been resolved going forward…. And then Beer showed the email from Fujitsu to the PO/Read sent following the meeting.
Silence, and an increasingly reddened face. Patterson, CEO of Fujitsu Europe, did not pull a single punch. The PO get nothing outside of technical support for faults for the next 3 years, when the contract ends. And at which point Fujitsu will not take on the PO as a customer. Further to that he was damning in his criticism of the obvious continuation of the culture that has got the PO into the mess it’s in. In terms of how CEO’s ‘talk’ to each other, the sort of language used is reserved for minions so that the CEO’s can step in to retrieve a situation. That isn’t going to happen between the PO and Fujitsu.
As for the failed prosecution, the Police replied that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. And the PO’s response to the Police was to send a very lengthy letter quoting bits of Justice Fraser’s judgement in which Justice Fraser had said the new version of Horizon was more robust than previous versions. The quoted pieces had been taken out of context and weaved into the PO’s own script. Beer went through the letter pulling out the comments from Justice Fraser’s judgement and asked Read if he was party to or aware of the letter that had been sent to the Police. Sir Wyn stepped in with a few comments about Justice Fraser’s judgement being sacrosanct and asked ‘how is more robust defined. Does it mean better than the previous version but not robust?” The question was left hanging, but he made his point.
I wonder who penned that letter to the Police? Who would be far enough up the chain to do it, and who would have detailed knowledge of the judgement?
Quick point from this morning. There are 33 ongoing Police investigations across 22 force areas in which Horizon data forms the core of the evidence.
And still the PO is prosecuting SubPostmasters based on shortfalls highlighted by Horizon.
There are currently 2 known bugs in the Horizon system…
And still the PO is prosecuting SubPostmasters based on shortfalls highlighted by Horizon.
There are currently 2 known bugs in the Horizon system…
Robster59
Tour Rookie
Definitely a case of cover our arses at all costs, and they couldn't give a flying fig about the repurcussions on other people. 
The morning session has just finished. Apart from the fact that no doubt there’ll be a number of revelations amidst the awkward moments for Read, I’ve had my fill of listening to spin, part truths and worse.
The morning session has, in the main, been about the processes and policies put in place to help rebuild a relationship with SubPostmasters. Early on in the session Read painted a lovely picture of a particular process that was started in 2021. It sounded so rosy… Beer had Read’s witness statement displayed. Part way through the section the spin changes from past tense to future tense. I thought it hadn’t been spotted, as Beer concluded his questioning. Sir Wyn hadn’t missed it. A quick question about no subpostmasters had gone through this process. Lengthy pregnant pause. Lots of colour on Read’s face. Nailed!
Time and again, today & yesterday, Read has spoken about all the lovely, flowery processes put in place to affect change, and time and again it’s been shown that they’ve not been launched yet - if they ever will be. Some of these proposed changes have been completed but awaiting launch for around 4 years.
Read spoke at length about his decision to have two SubPostmasters appointed to the board. He felt it important on a number of fronts to do this, and just had neon flashing lights as he (almost) said look at me, aren’t I great. Witnesses in the last two weeks, as well as documents displayed, clearly show he wants them off the board. Beer got close to confronting the issue but backed away for whatever reason.
Read also spoke of a lengthy exercise undertaken to identify PO staff who might have been involved in investigations & prosecutions, the intention being to move those people sideways to avoid any further contact with SubPostmasters. Sound sensible… but Beer then displayed an email that showed that a manager who had been front and central to the prosecutions was now part of the team meeting with SubPostmasters as part of the remuneration unit. Read breaks into waffle mode, explaining it away as the individual is best placed, because of their past experiences. Beer wouldn’t let it go but neither would Read be shifted from his belief that it was a good idea, even though a number of SubPostmasters and their legal teams have complained bitterly about it.
Think I’ve lost count of the number of times Beer has shown contradicting evidence to a statement Read has made. As for the number of witnesses whose stories are fairly similar, Read says something totally different. It’s unbelievable Jeff!
The morning session has, in the main, been about the processes and policies put in place to help rebuild a relationship with SubPostmasters. Early on in the session Read painted a lovely picture of a particular process that was started in 2021. It sounded so rosy… Beer had Read’s witness statement displayed. Part way through the section the spin changes from past tense to future tense. I thought it hadn’t been spotted, as Beer concluded his questioning. Sir Wyn hadn’t missed it. A quick question about no subpostmasters had gone through this process. Lengthy pregnant pause. Lots of colour on Read’s face. Nailed!
Time and again, today & yesterday, Read has spoken about all the lovely, flowery processes put in place to affect change, and time and again it’s been shown that they’ve not been launched yet - if they ever will be. Some of these proposed changes have been completed but awaiting launch for around 4 years.
Read spoke at length about his decision to have two SubPostmasters appointed to the board. He felt it important on a number of fronts to do this, and just had neon flashing lights as he (almost) said look at me, aren’t I great. Witnesses in the last two weeks, as well as documents displayed, clearly show he wants them off the board. Beer got close to confronting the issue but backed away for whatever reason.
Read also spoke of a lengthy exercise undertaken to identify PO staff who might have been involved in investigations & prosecutions, the intention being to move those people sideways to avoid any further contact with SubPostmasters. Sound sensible… but Beer then displayed an email that showed that a manager who had been front and central to the prosecutions was now part of the team meeting with SubPostmasters as part of the remuneration unit. Read breaks into waffle mode, explaining it away as the individual is best placed, because of their past experiences. Beer wouldn’t let it go but neither would Read be shifted from his belief that it was a good idea, even though a number of SubPostmasters and their legal teams have complained bitterly about it.
Think I’ve lost count of the number of times Beer has shown contradicting evidence to a statement Read has made. As for the number of witnesses whose stories are fairly similar, Read says something totally different. It’s unbelievable Jeff!
This afternoon’s session with Nick Read was a bit of an anticlimax, including when the Core Participants barrister Ed Henry was asking questions. For the first part Jason Beer KC asked about policies & procedures, who’d authored them and were they fit for purpose. Even when it looked like an anomaly had been found it wasn’t followed through on.
And then it was Ed Henry’s turn. Bearing in mind how brutally direct the Core Participants legal teams have been I was expecting real fireworks. Henry painted a picture of how long the subbies had been waiting, including the sad number of 251 SubPostmasters have died waiting on their convictions being overturned and for compensation to be paid. He then asked a number of closed questions that Read could only answer one way. “Isn’t the scandal a disgrace?” “Doesn’t it portray the PO in a bad light?” +++
It appeared to be such a timid session, a conspiracy theorist might think someone had said go easy on him. Maybe there were no other answers to the set of questions posed but after the first day and a half’s ‘fun’ I expected more of the same.
We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
And then it was Ed Henry’s turn. Bearing in mind how brutally direct the Core Participants legal teams have been I was expecting real fireworks. Henry painted a picture of how long the subbies had been waiting, including the sad number of 251 SubPostmasters have died waiting on their convictions being overturned and for compensation to be paid. He then asked a number of closed questions that Read could only answer one way. “Isn’t the scandal a disgrace?” “Doesn’t it portray the PO in a bad light?” +++
It appeared to be such a timid session, a conspiracy theorist might think someone had said go easy on him. Maybe there were no other answers to the set of questions posed but after the first day and a half’s ‘fun’ I expected more of the same.
We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
Ross61
Challenge Tour Pro
Thanks Hobbit for your time a dedication to writing these updates.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who looks forward to reading your posts but never makes any comments. Keep up the good work
I’m sure I’m not the only one who looks forward to reading your posts but never makes any comments. Keep up the good work
Yesterday saw Nick Read’s 3rd day before the Inquiry. In the main, it was a return to Jason Beer KC asking a question, Read answering it then Beer displaying a document that in some way contradicted Read’s answer.
My Twitter feed is full of comments about Read being a “snake oil salesman.” There’s some very insightful comments, many picking up on who manages the various remuneration and redress schemes set up following various litigations and judgements. Jason Beer KC had danced around this on the first afternoon and second morning. And supported by the Core Participants legal teams something shadowy that was masked by smoke and mirrors emerged yesterday.
Nick Read didn’t want the PO managing the schemes as he felt it would always be seen as the PO would fight each claim tooth & nail. In reality, claims are fought anyway but it’s just further bad press for the PO. Beer had asked Read about PO employees central to the prosecutions also managing the schemes. Read’s reply was they had in the early days but not now. One PO manager had been identified as still involved, see post 829 para 5.
And this is where some of the smoke and mirrors is revealed. Nick Read decided that although the PO have been instructed by the shareholder that they will manage the schemes, the day to day running of those schemes would be outsourced. The PO contracted out the running of those schemes to companies that were set up specifically to run those schemes. AND the staff who were employed by those companies… the majority are ex-PO employees/investigators/auditors that were made redundant when in-house investigations all but ended.
A cynic might look at this and draw a comparison with the setting up of Covid PPE companies. It’s not uncommon for companies to make redundancies as part of a cost cutting exercise then employ a contractor that has been set up to pick up the work the ex-employees used to do, who then employ those ex-employees to do it. BT have done it since their first round of redundancies in 1992, and have continued to do it.
The side benefit to this for the PO is that a number of people employed by those companies is they will fight the claims because either consciously or subconsciously they still think those subbies are guilty.
And once again, time and again, we saw Read giving non-answers and subtly changing the thrust of questions. Read didn’t get an easy ride but he dodged and weaved like an old prize fighter. As one of the Core Participants solicitors said when Read didn’t answer a question and Sir Wyn asked the solicitor if he was happy with the answer, “oh I got the answer I wanted Sir.” Read was nailed.
My Twitter feed is full of comments about Read being a “snake oil salesman.” There’s some very insightful comments, many picking up on who manages the various remuneration and redress schemes set up following various litigations and judgements. Jason Beer KC had danced around this on the first afternoon and second morning. And supported by the Core Participants legal teams something shadowy that was masked by smoke and mirrors emerged yesterday.
Nick Read didn’t want the PO managing the schemes as he felt it would always be seen as the PO would fight each claim tooth & nail. In reality, claims are fought anyway but it’s just further bad press for the PO. Beer had asked Read about PO employees central to the prosecutions also managing the schemes. Read’s reply was they had in the early days but not now. One PO manager had been identified as still involved, see post 829 para 5.
And this is where some of the smoke and mirrors is revealed. Nick Read decided that although the PO have been instructed by the shareholder that they will manage the schemes, the day to day running of those schemes would be outsourced. The PO contracted out the running of those schemes to companies that were set up specifically to run those schemes. AND the staff who were employed by those companies… the majority are ex-PO employees/investigators/auditors that were made redundant when in-house investigations all but ended.
A cynic might look at this and draw a comparison with the setting up of Covid PPE companies. It’s not uncommon for companies to make redundancies as part of a cost cutting exercise then employ a contractor that has been set up to pick up the work the ex-employees used to do, who then employ those ex-employees to do it. BT have done it since their first round of redundancies in 1992, and have continued to do it.
The side benefit to this for the PO is that a number of people employed by those companies is they will fight the claims because either consciously or subconsciously they still think those subbies are guilty.
And once again, time and again, we saw Read giving non-answers and subtly changing the thrust of questions. Read didn’t get an easy ride but he dodged and weaved like an old prize fighter. As one of the Core Participants solicitors said when Read didn’t answer a question and Sir Wyn asked the solicitor if he was happy with the answer, “oh I got the answer I wanted Sir.” Read was nailed.
Public Interest Cases - the ‘gift’ that just keeps on giving.
Amongst all the cases that have seen the convictions overturned there are a number that the PO legal team have reviewed and subsequently persuaded the board that if retried the PO would still win. This is based on corroborating evidence that supported the original prosecution. Drum roll… the corroborating evidence is where the SubPostmaster pleaded guilty to false accounting. However, in pretty much all these cases it was the PO that bullied the SubPostmaster into pleading guilty to false accounting in return for lesser charges & sentences.
Having persuaded the board that the group would still be found guilty, they also said there’s no point in pushing for a retrial as even if found guilty the SubPostmasters had already served a sentence for the initial offence.
Seems like a pointless exercise by the PO. Churlish at best. And as the Remuneration Unit operates independently of the PO, the compensation paid to this group won’t be affected - or will it…
This group have been given a different designation as a group of claimants, and as such receive a token gesture payment. Is the Remuneration Unit independent? According to Nick Read it is. Who from the PO legal team and/or the board has persuaded the Unit to view this group differently?
The PO has always maintained that some of those that have been exonerated are still guilty in their eyes. Is the PO guilty of contempt of court by refusing to acknowledge the decision in some cases? Will those SubPostmasters have to fight through the courts again to receive full redress?
Time and again through the 3 days of Nick Read’s evidence we heard about all the good things that the PO had or were putting in place for the SubPostmasters. Many times through the 3 days we saw that the truth was either subtly or vastly different. And as that evidence from Read is put under scrutiny by SubPostmasters and their legal teams who were not at the Inquiry, we’re seeing a very different picture.
On a separate note, one SubPostmaster committed suicide when the PO accused him of fraud by using the pin machine on the counter. His family have been refused the right to compensation because it was the pin machine not the Horizon system. However, the Horizon system manages the pin machine in branch, and it was the Horizon system that ‘reported’ the discrepancy.
Amongst all the cases that have seen the convictions overturned there are a number that the PO legal team have reviewed and subsequently persuaded the board that if retried the PO would still win. This is based on corroborating evidence that supported the original prosecution. Drum roll… the corroborating evidence is where the SubPostmaster pleaded guilty to false accounting. However, in pretty much all these cases it was the PO that bullied the SubPostmaster into pleading guilty to false accounting in return for lesser charges & sentences.
Having persuaded the board that the group would still be found guilty, they also said there’s no point in pushing for a retrial as even if found guilty the SubPostmasters had already served a sentence for the initial offence.
Seems like a pointless exercise by the PO. Churlish at best. And as the Remuneration Unit operates independently of the PO, the compensation paid to this group won’t be affected - or will it…
This group have been given a different designation as a group of claimants, and as such receive a token gesture payment. Is the Remuneration Unit independent? According to Nick Read it is. Who from the PO legal team and/or the board has persuaded the Unit to view this group differently?
The PO has always maintained that some of those that have been exonerated are still guilty in their eyes. Is the PO guilty of contempt of court by refusing to acknowledge the decision in some cases? Will those SubPostmasters have to fight through the courts again to receive full redress?
Time and again through the 3 days of Nick Read’s evidence we heard about all the good things that the PO had or were putting in place for the SubPostmasters. Many times through the 3 days we saw that the truth was either subtly or vastly different. And as that evidence from Read is put under scrutiny by SubPostmasters and their legal teams who were not at the Inquiry, we’re seeing a very different picture.
On a separate note, one SubPostmaster committed suicide when the PO accused him of fraud by using the pin machine on the counter. His family have been refused the right to compensation because it was the pin machine not the Horizon system. However, the Horizon system manages the pin machine in branch, and it was the Horizon system that ‘reported’ the discrepancy.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I think there are a little over 100 convictions that have been quashed. Some were duped and/or bullied into pleading guilty.
Lee Castleton pleaded not guilty and faced bankruptcy due to the legal costs for PO becoming his debt - around £300,000.
There are possibly hundreds more convictions to be dealt with. They remain guilty in terms of the law.
The law works more swiftly for Lee Castleton because he pleaded not guilty.
Others are in the position of wishing to change their plea years-and-years after the event. They have a case to do so, but it is a further complication.
This is another example of wherethe law our legal system fails to work efficiently for those who really need it to do so.
And there is simply no precedent for dealing with so many linked cases. It had never been envisaged that something on this scale would ever happen.
A serious and hard look at our legal system is another topic that should arise out of this enquiry.
How was it so very easy to falsely convict so many and why is it so difficult for so many to achieve the justice they deserve?
The legal system is also answerable for its part in this scandal.
Lee Castleton pleaded not guilty and faced bankruptcy due to the legal costs for PO becoming his debt - around £300,000.
There are possibly hundreds more convictions to be dealt with. They remain guilty in terms of the law.
The law works more swiftly for Lee Castleton because he pleaded not guilty.
Others are in the position of wishing to change their plea years-and-years after the event. They have a case to do so, but it is a further complication.
This is another example of where
And there is simply no precedent for dealing with so many linked cases. It had never been envisaged that something on this scale would ever happen.
A serious and hard look at our legal system is another topic that should arise out of this enquiry.
How was it so very easy to falsely convict so many and why is it so difficult for so many to achieve the justice they deserve?
The legal system is also answerable for its part in this scandal.
Yesterday morning saw Mike Young, Chief of Technology and Operations Services Director, evidence to the Inquiry. Young was Lesley Sewell(IT Director) boss. He left mid 2012, and in that respect this feels more like a Phase 5/6 session than the current Phase 7 review of current processes and procedures. Edit - revealed by Sir Wyn that the Inquiry struggled to find then schedule Mike Young into the Phase 5/6 hearings.
Pretty much all of his evidence revolves around did he know about the bugs, what did he do about them. Rather than go through example after example one question shows what a lot of his replies to the Inquiry appeared to be. He was asked about his involvement in the Seema Misra case, his reply being he wasn’t involved and knew very little. He was then shown an email addressed to him showing he was involved. To be fair to him, time and again he said if the email is addressed to me I will have read it. He was a cul de sac. Stuff went in but very little came out.
It was around this point he awakened to the possibility that there was something seriously wrong, pretty much triggered by Computer Weekly’s second article and that the Beeb were sniffing around for more than a 1 minute segment for a backend filler on 9pm news. It woke other directors & Pauls Vennells up too. It showed that the PO, largely, operated in silos. Mid & Senior level managers were up to their elbows in the guts of it by then but most board members appeared unaware of the seriousness of the issues in front of them.
Around late 2010 it was proposed to have the system audited. A company called PinTest were proposed to do it. A few months later the clamour for the results was growing as more bad press was emerging. Vennells, and others, were led to believe that the results were just a couple of weeks away. Er, Fujitsu hadn’t engaged anyone to do the work but now suggested it should be KPMG. Young left the business shortly after - Second Sight were the company that was finally asked to carry out the review. It only took a year to get it off the ground, and we know what the PO did to Second Sight & the review.
Separation hadn’t occurred from the Royal Mail early in his tenure. The Group solicitor sent an email to senior management about reviews of Horizon and how they would need to be shared with defence teams. The email also spoke about document retention, general disclosure and NOT destroying documents. Nothing to worry about for Mike Young there. All the IT documents/info were nothing to do with him - responsibility for them was on the Security team. Really?
To be able to find relevant documents those documents must have a title that will Ping up in a search. A good one from yesterday; a one line, almost throw away question as a document was discussed. “Why has this document been renamed? Never mind, we’ll move on.” Point made in evidence.
Pretty much all of his evidence revolves around did he know about the bugs, what did he do about them. Rather than go through example after example one question shows what a lot of his replies to the Inquiry appeared to be. He was asked about his involvement in the Seema Misra case, his reply being he wasn’t involved and knew very little. He was then shown an email addressed to him showing he was involved. To be fair to him, time and again he said if the email is addressed to me I will have read it. He was a cul de sac. Stuff went in but very little came out.
It was around this point he awakened to the possibility that there was something seriously wrong, pretty much triggered by Computer Weekly’s second article and that the Beeb were sniffing around for more than a 1 minute segment for a backend filler on 9pm news. It woke other directors & Pauls Vennells up too. It showed that the PO, largely, operated in silos. Mid & Senior level managers were up to their elbows in the guts of it by then but most board members appeared unaware of the seriousness of the issues in front of them.
Around late 2010 it was proposed to have the system audited. A company called PinTest were proposed to do it. A few months later the clamour for the results was growing as more bad press was emerging. Vennells, and others, were led to believe that the results were just a couple of weeks away. Er, Fujitsu hadn’t engaged anyone to do the work but now suggested it should be KPMG. Young left the business shortly after - Second Sight were the company that was finally asked to carry out the review. It only took a year to get it off the ground, and we know what the PO did to Second Sight & the review.
Separation hadn’t occurred from the Royal Mail early in his tenure. The Group solicitor sent an email to senior management about reviews of Horizon and how they would need to be shared with defence teams. The email also spoke about document retention, general disclosure and NOT destroying documents. Nothing to worry about for Mike Young there. All the IT documents/info were nothing to do with him - responsibility for them was on the Security team. Really?
To be able to find relevant documents those documents must have a title that will Ping up in a search. A good one from yesterday; a one line, almost throw away question as a document was discussed. “Why has this document been renamed? Never mind, we’ll move on.” Point made in evidence.
Last edited:
Yesterday afternoon’s session began with closing out Mike Young’s evidence to the Inquiry. As you’d expect the Core Participants legal teams weren’t gentle. Equally, where Young thought he was in the right, he wasn’t shy either.
The afternoon session saw Simon Oldnall, Horizon IT director at the PO. It is a Phase 7 ‘discussion’ about the current processes. He was led through why the PO had decided to restart using Horizon data as the trigger to shortfall prosecutions. PO believe that Horizon is now operating within tolerance. As a side note, the new Horizon system has 2 known bugs. What hasn’t been revealed is whether or not data is lost if the power is switched off and back on. Nor has the new Helpdesk script been discussed.
The afternoon session saw Simon Oldnall, Horizon IT director at the PO. It is a Phase 7 ‘discussion’ about the current processes. He was led through why the PO had decided to restart using Horizon data as the trigger to shortfall prosecutions. PO believe that Horizon is now operating within tolerance. As a side note, the new Horizon system has 2 known bugs. What hasn’t been revealed is whether or not data is lost if the power is switched off and back on. Nor has the new Helpdesk script been discussed.
Wednesday saw Tracey Marshall, Postal Engagement Director, and Melanie Park, Operations Director, giving evidence.
Marshall joined the PO as a graduate entry into the accelerated management programme. As expected, she’s worked in a number of departments & areas to gain a broad overview of the business. This approach can work for a business, if managed closely… Recent years have shown that book learning doesn’t trump experience. Although a network of contacts is built up, an understanding of the detail of what those contacts do is limited. Someone who has come in at shop floor level builds up a far better knowledge of an organisation and who to talk to if there are issues outside of their current department.
Marshall is an example of everything that is wrong about accelerated management programmes. Time and again she was asked a question, didn’t know the answer and didn’t know where to find that answer within the organisation. She added little benefit to the Inquiry
Melanie Park, by contrast, is absolutely on top of her brief. Great witness, explained things very clearly & simply. Her remit included branch audits, often surrounding shortfalls and disputes. She knows her job inside out, right the way down to shop floor level. The dispute resolution process now in place appears to be robust. However, Horizon data around short falls is the trigger for investigations. The PO now appear to be looking at balancing cash on hand & stock levels against the Horizon data. In theory, if Horizon shows a short fall that is incorrect, the cash on hand & stock level will show an excess value almost equivalent to the short fall.
Sadly, the PO appear to still push for a prosecution in certain questionable circumstances. They’ve moved a long way but…
Yesterday’s witness was John Bartlett, Assurance & Complex investigations director. Mmm, interesting guy to listen to. Although very much part of the new breed of senior managers at the PO, there’s too much of the old PO in him. He often played the semantics game, twisting words and meanings quite subtly at times. There was a lengthy piece around the letter the Fujitsu European director sent saying that Fujitsu won’t provide independent expert witness statements to the PO nor the Police but will provide raw evidence to the Police if it was requested by the Police. Bartlett’s interpretation of the letter & what Fujitsu will provide is very different. The sheer arrogance was breath taking.
Bartlett appears to be a continuation of everything that is wrong with the PO, including by his own admission what gets disclosed to defence teams - appalling.
Today sees Ben Foat back before the Inquiry. Him of the racist comments and very dodgy disclosure issues. 9am start - could be exceptionally messy.
Marshall joined the PO as a graduate entry into the accelerated management programme. As expected, she’s worked in a number of departments & areas to gain a broad overview of the business. This approach can work for a business, if managed closely… Recent years have shown that book learning doesn’t trump experience. Although a network of contacts is built up, an understanding of the detail of what those contacts do is limited. Someone who has come in at shop floor level builds up a far better knowledge of an organisation and who to talk to if there are issues outside of their current department.
Marshall is an example of everything that is wrong about accelerated management programmes. Time and again she was asked a question, didn’t know the answer and didn’t know where to find that answer within the organisation. She added little benefit to the Inquiry
Melanie Park, by contrast, is absolutely on top of her brief. Great witness, explained things very clearly & simply. Her remit included branch audits, often surrounding shortfalls and disputes. She knows her job inside out, right the way down to shop floor level. The dispute resolution process now in place appears to be robust. However, Horizon data around short falls is the trigger for investigations. The PO now appear to be looking at balancing cash on hand & stock levels against the Horizon data. In theory, if Horizon shows a short fall that is incorrect, the cash on hand & stock level will show an excess value almost equivalent to the short fall.
Sadly, the PO appear to still push for a prosecution in certain questionable circumstances. They’ve moved a long way but…
Yesterday’s witness was John Bartlett, Assurance & Complex investigations director. Mmm, interesting guy to listen to. Although very much part of the new breed of senior managers at the PO, there’s too much of the old PO in him. He often played the semantics game, twisting words and meanings quite subtly at times. There was a lengthy piece around the letter the Fujitsu European director sent saying that Fujitsu won’t provide independent expert witness statements to the PO nor the Police but will provide raw evidence to the Police if it was requested by the Police. Bartlett’s interpretation of the letter & what Fujitsu will provide is very different. The sheer arrogance was breath taking.
Bartlett appears to be a continuation of everything that is wrong with the PO, including by his own admission what gets disclosed to defence teams - appalling.
Today sees Ben Foat back before the Inquiry. Him of the racist comments and very dodgy disclosure issues. 9am start - could be exceptionally messy.
Still waiting on the Post Office Inquiry site posting up Friday’s vid of Ben Foat’s session. Just a few points from what I saw on the day. His few month’s sabbatical to prepare for Friday’s worked in his favour. He was far more assured and comfortable. However, being assured doesn’t necessarily change the evidence.
Part of the evidence revolved around the criteria for compensation, though not necessarily in force today. For example, if a SubPostmaster had pleaded guilty to any aspect of a prosecution they were excluded from the compensation scheme - how many pleaded guilty to lesser charges just to end the hell they were going through or to avoid prison?
Another criteria set by the PO was that SubPostmasters had to have 5 independent medicals.
Surprisingly, there isn’t many clips from other sources on Twitter yet, nor too many comments from SubPostmasters. Bit odd…
Part of the evidence revolved around the criteria for compensation, though not necessarily in force today. For example, if a SubPostmaster had pleaded guilty to any aspect of a prosecution they were excluded from the compensation scheme - how many pleaded guilty to lesser charges just to end the hell they were going through or to avoid prison?
Another criteria set by the PO was that SubPostmasters had to have 5 independent medicals.
Surprisingly, there isn’t many clips from other sources on Twitter yet, nor too many comments from SubPostmasters. Bit odd…
“Thinning the herd.”
Time and again the PO executives in recent weeks spoke about SubPostmasters receiving full support and full redress. Bit strange that the very same executives were included in an email chain about making getting compensation painful in the hope it would “thin the herd,” i.e. reduce the numbers of those pushing for the compensation. Not one of them spoke out against that language.
I do hope that more than severe censure follows the Inquiry. Justice Fraser went to town on the PO, which although it prompted the setting up the Inquiry it has actually achieved very little so far.
Time and again the PO executives in recent weeks spoke about SubPostmasters receiving full support and full redress. Bit strange that the very same executives were included in an email chain about making getting compensation painful in the hope it would “thin the herd,” i.e. reduce the numbers of those pushing for the compensation. Not one of them spoke out against that language.
I do hope that more than severe censure follows the Inquiry. Justice Fraser went to town on the PO, which although it prompted the setting up the Inquiry it has actually achieved very little so far.
Friday’s session with Ben Foat was finally posted up 30 mins ago. I’ve managed to pick up quite a bit from a very garbled version uploaded by the Daily Mirror.
Just a few points from the vid.
The PO ‘found’ 31,000 documents that weren’t disclosed to the defence teams of the SubPostmasters at their initial trials.
The PO have an overarching limit on how much compensation they have to give out, irrespective of how much the SubPostmasters should ultimately deserve. It’s an area of concern for Sir Wyn.
The issue of how much money has been paid to the PO by SubPostmasters. The PO have said they ‘recovered’ £36m. A team of forensic accountants have said that the number is close on £250m. This raises a number of potentials issues for the PO. First of all, the annual accounts presented to the shareholder (govt) and for tax purposes must be accurate - that’s a legal requirement. Bonuses were paid to investigators and their managers based on monies recovered. Bonuses were paid to senior managers and directors based on various revenue streams - directors even received bonuses if the target hadn’t been met - Nick Reed, CEO, has already paid back £36k he should not have received. Hopefully a lot more will be recovered.
The Inquiry was supposed to be sitting today and for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, it’s been put back to the 4th November.
Just a few points from the vid.
The PO ‘found’ 31,000 documents that weren’t disclosed to the defence teams of the SubPostmasters at their initial trials.
The PO have an overarching limit on how much compensation they have to give out, irrespective of how much the SubPostmasters should ultimately deserve. It’s an area of concern for Sir Wyn.
The issue of how much money has been paid to the PO by SubPostmasters. The PO have said they ‘recovered’ £36m. A team of forensic accountants have said that the number is close on £250m. This raises a number of potentials issues for the PO. First of all, the annual accounts presented to the shareholder (govt) and for tax purposes must be accurate - that’s a legal requirement. Bonuses were paid to investigators and their managers based on monies recovered. Bonuses were paid to senior managers and directors based on various revenue streams - directors even received bonuses if the target hadn’t been met - Nick Reed, CEO, has already paid back £36k he should not have received. Hopefully a lot more will be recovered.
The Inquiry was supposed to be sitting today and for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, it’s been put back to the 4th November.
