Horizon IT - Post Office - Public Enquiry

[Lone Striker]

Bit of a strange and unnecessary stooshie  related to the Westminster Bill to cancel all the convictions in England & Wales and expedite compensation payouts.      Holyrood politicians playing politics over this is not a good look - Angela Constance is moaning that the Westminster Bill will only cover the SPMs in England & Wales.   Given that  the prosecutions were brought by 2 different justice systems, it seems petty to be raising this - just get on and bring a similar Bill to Holyrood to cover the Scottish SPMs.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67907644

[milky_26]

7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Bit of a strange and unnecessary stooshie  related to the Westminster Bill to cancel all the convictions in England & Wales and expedite compensation payouts.      Holyrood politicians playing politics over this is not a good look - Angela Constance is moaning that the Westminster Bill will only cover the SPMs in England & Wales.   Given that  the prosecutions were brought by 2 different justice systems, it seems petty to be raising this - just get on and bring a similar Bill to Holyrood to cover the Scottish SPMs.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67907644

it does seem a massive own goal by the scottish government. Just think they could have introduced their own bill to cancel all the convictions of those prosecuted under scottish law and then played politics saying they care more and have done it quicker than westminster. The fact that they have not gives ammo to say that they are lagging behind (care less is how it could be phrased) the weak tory govt who are most likley only rushing it through due to an up coming election.

[Ulysses]

Does anyone know whether the extent of these prosecutions was as bad in Scotland as in England and Wales? Or worse? Or better?

 

I'm asking because of the different legal systems and the different requirements they'd have for bringing successful prosecutions.

[milky_26]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Does anyone know whether the extent of these prosecutions was as bad in Scotland as in England and Wales? Or worse? Or better?

 

I'm asking because of the different legal systems and the different requirements they'd have for bringing successful prosecutions.

from what i can see it was over 700 SPMs in the whole of the UK with around 100 being in scotland

[Ulysses]

19 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

from what i can see it was over 700 SPMs in the whole of the UK with around 100 being in scotland

 

Thanks.  I thought I'd read somewhere that it was harder to get convictions in Scotland because (i) the Post Office can't bring prosecutions by itself in Scotland and (ii) evidence requirements around computer records were more stringent. But I may have dreamt that or misread something. 

[periodictabledancer]

23 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Thanks.  I thought I'd read somewhere that it was harder to get convictions in Scotland because (i) the Post Office can't bring prosecutions by itself in Scotland and (ii) evidence requirements around computer records were more stringent. But I may have dreamt that or misread something. 

There needs to be corroboration but it looks like this safeguard was ignored because the Scots authorities decided to accept (very dodgy) confessions as corroboration : is my understanding.

Also, under Scots law, if/when evidence comes to light that threatens a conviction the authorities are supposed to review convictions - but even when the IT issues became public knowledge, the authorities in Scotland still failed to act. 

That's not to say that some cases weren't kicked out, they were , and PO hid that fact. 

[Footballfirst]

There are various numbers being banded about re prosecutions and appeals, both in the UK and specifically in Scotland.

 

The oft quoted 700 are those who were prosecuted by POL themselves between 1999 and 2015. A further 283 have been identified by POL that were prosecuted either in other agencies (Scotland, NI, DWP, or the CPS in England and Wales).  There were also others who were prosecuted during the pilot scheme from 1996 to 1999

 

https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/horizon-scandal-pages/faqs

 

I've seen three different figures quoted for convictions in Scotland, 100, 80 and 50. I'd tend to go with the middle figure as that was used by Justice Secretary Angela Constance when speaking in the Scottish Parliament last month. That is the number who had been written to by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Only 16 had come forward seeking to have their convictions overturned.  To date only 6 have had their convictions quashed.   

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

There are various numbers being banded about re prosecutions and appeals, both in the UK and specifically in Scotland.

 

The oft quoted 700 are those who were prosecuted by POL themselves between 1999 and 2015. A further 283 have been identified by POL that were prosecuted either in other agencies (Scotland, NI, DWP, or the CPS in England and Wales).  There were also others who were prosecuted during the pilot scheme from 1996 to 1999

 

https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/horizon-scandal-pages/faqs

 

I've seen three different figures quoted for convictions in Scotland, 100, 80 and 50. I'd tend to go with the middle figure as that was used by Justice Secretary Angela Constance when speaking in the Scottish Parliament last month. That is the number who had been written to by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Only 16 had come forward seeking to have their convictions overturned.  To date only 6 have had their convictions quashed.   

 

 

Cheers.  Pardon my ignorance, but according to the England and Wales legislation, who is responsible for funding the payments to SPMs?  I'm asking because of @redjambo's point (see below).

 

8 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Quite. It's all of question of who foots the bill, of course.

 

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Cheers.  Pardon my ignorance, but according to the England and Wales legislation, who is responsible for funding the payments to SPMs?  I'm asking because of @redjambo's point (see below).

 

 

Post Office Limited is primarily responsible, but as the UK Government is the only shareholder, responsibility will fall to the taxpayer. The Post Office accounts suggest that they have funded the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (mainly the amounts wrongly taken from Postmasters) from their own funds. However, the government has allocated around £1bn of taxpayers cash to fund the other two schemes (Group Litigation and the Overturned convictions). 

 

Fujitsu has committed to providing an unspecified amount, but won't fund anything until the inquiry concludes.

Edited March 14, 2024 by Footballfirst

[Ulysses]

28 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Post Office Limited is primarily responsible, but as the UK Government is the only shareholder, responsibility will fall to the taxpayer. The Post Office accounts suggest that they have funded the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (mainly the amounts wrongly taken from Postmasters) from their own funds. However, the government has allocated around £1bn of taxpayers cash to fund the other two schemes (Group Litigation and the Overturned convictions). 

 

Fujitsu has committed to providing an unspecified amount, but won't fund anything until the inquiry concludes.

 

Does that not mean that the Scottish Government shouldn't and/or can't bring forward legislation?  Logically, you'd expect that to be the responsibility (and the right) of the body that has to stump up the taxpayers' money.  At the very least it would mean that any legislation could be no more than a "housekeeping" measure to ensure that Scottish cases are treated in the same way as all the others.

[i wish jj was my dad]

It shouldn't be beyond the two administrations to agree a joined up approach and act accordingly. 

[Footballfirst]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Does that not mean that the Scottish Government shouldn't and/or can't bring forward legislation?  Logically, you'd expect that to be the responsibility (and the right) of the body that has to stump up the taxpayers' money.  At the very least it would mean that any legislation could be no more than a "housekeeping" measure to ensure that Scottish cases are treated in the same way as all the others.

 

3 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

It shouldn't be beyond the two administrations to agree a joined up approach and act accordingly. 

That is what the Scottish Government was looking for Westminster to do, but for some reason between them they chose not to go down that route. My understanding is that the Scottish Government is now waiting for the England and Wales legislation to pass before implementing their own version, which will only extend the time taken to settle with the affected post masters.

[periodictabledancer]

5 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

That is what the Scottish Government was looking for Westminster to do, but for some reason between them they chose not to go down that route. My understanding is that the Scottish Government is now waiting for the England and Wales legislation to pass before implementing their own version, which will only extend the time taken to settle with the affected post masters.

Deleted 

Edited March 14, 2024 by periodictabledancer

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

That is what the Scottish Government was looking for Westminster to do, but for some reason between them they chose not to go down that route. My understanding is that the Scottish Government is now waiting for the England and Wales legislation to pass before implementing their own version, which will only extend the time taken to settle with the affected post masters.

 

Thanks. 

 

It sounds like a right mess; this entire saga sounds like a right mess.

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Thanks. 

 

It sounds like a right mess; this entire saga sounds like a right mess.

Yes, the whole saga has spanned 4 decades and featured  some   of the worst kinds of human & corporate  behaviours.

 

Its not the only scandal to provoke outrage among large sections of the public  though.

 

The Infected Blood scandal resulted in many deaths and even more folk having to live with  long-term debilitating illnesses.  There's a public inquiry into it currently.

 

The WIndrush generation of immigrants from the Caribbean  took decades  to be fully accepted with equal rights due to inherent prejudices at high levels of successive  UK governments.

 

The post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan required hundreds of local interpreters who agreed to help the UK forces in exchange for protection and safe passage to a new life in the UK.   The eventual legislation put restrictions on eligibility which hadn't  been explained to the interpreters, so many of them feared for their lives when the Taliban took over again.  Some of  the restrictions were watered down or removed after an outcry by the Armed Forces generals and the public - but I don't think 100% of the interpreters ended up    being able to board the flights to the UK.  

 

A recent scandal in Scotland was the hidden practices of some funeral directors & crematoriums  involving the bodies & ashes of babies who died either just before or after birth.

 

Its an embarrassing  litany of shame, really

    

Edited March 14, 2024 by Lone Striker

[ehcaley]

ITV running Subpostmaster Federation/George Thomson story today

[Footballfirst]

18 minutes ago, ehcaley said:

ITV running Subpostmaster Federation/George Thomson story today

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-03-20/union-representing-sub-postmasters-ignored-horizon-concerns-itv-news-reveals

[Footballfirst]

Here's the timetable for phases 5 and 6 of the inquiry which start on April 9th.  Weeks 3, 7 and 11 should make interesting viewing.

 

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-5-and-6-timetable

Edited March 20, 2024 by Footballfirst

[periodictabledancer]

20 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here's the timetable for phases 5 and 6 of the inquiry which start on April 9th.  Weeks 3, 7 and 11 should make interesting viewing.

 

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-5-and-6-timetable

Week 4 sees the return of serial amnesiac & conveyancing expert/part timr criminal lawyer  Jarnail Singh, Week 5 Rod Dismay should get a proper kebabing after after the last series of testimonies exposed him even further and Week 6 brings up Alasdair Cameron who will no doubt be asked to explain how/who signed off on the colossal legal bills POL ran up , no doubt with particular focus on Lee Castleton's case. 

 

Something for everyone, as they say. 

I'll certainly be getting the popcorn in. 

[The Mighty Thor]

INCOMING!!

 

This will push the story up the news cycle again.

[Footballfirst]

Just watching it on Channel 4 just now.  Several people need jailed for perverting the course of justice, at a minimum.

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2024 by Footballfirst

[Victorian]

Very senior people and the lead lawyer were told first hand by the independent auditors that there was a serious problem with the evidence provided during convictions.  The auditors specifically advised that the CEO (Vennells) should be informed before giving evidence to parliament.  The missing piece is the proof of whether she was informed.

 

Liam Byrne is clear that interviews under caution are now critical.  Some people are now nailed to the wall.  Police investigation might just get the guilty to start talking and trying to do deals.  

 

Vennells takes a step nearer to prison. 

[Footballfirst]

24 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Very senior people and the lead lawyer were told first hand by the independent auditors that there was a serious problem with the evidence provided during convictions.  The auditors specifically advised that the CEO (Vennells) should be informed before giving evidence to parliament.  The missing piece is the proof of whether she was informed.

 

Liam Byrne is clear that interviews under caution are now critical.  Some people are now nailed to the wall.  Police investigation might just get the guilty to start talking and trying to do deals.  

 

Vennells takes a step nearer to prison. 

If interviews under caution are carried out in the next couple of weeks, I'd expect that Vennels, Jenkins and co would decline to answer any questions that the inquiry may have for them.

 

We already know that a couple of people are already under investigation by the Met.  They could well be the pair named above, so they may already have made a decision not to engage with the inquiry questions. Vennels is due to give evidence over three days from 22 May and Jenkins for 4 days starting 25 June. Incidentally Alwen Lyons, the Company Secretary, who was named in the C4 report as having been advised, gives evidence the day before Vennels.

[Victorian]

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

If interviews under caution are carried out in the next couple of weeks, I'd expect that Vennels, Jenkins and co would decline to answer any questions that the inquiry may have for them.

 

We already know that a couple of people are already under investigation by the Met.  They could well be the pair named above, so they may already have made a decision not to engage with the inquiry questions. Vennels is due to give evidence over three days from 22 May and Jenkins for 4 days starting 25 June. Incidentally Alwen Lyons, the Company Secretary, who was named in the C4 report as having been advised, gives evidence the day before Vennels.

 

On C4 News,  Krishnan Guru Murthy asked Liam Byrne if the inquiry might now be an obstacle to justice.  Byrne looked sceptical at first but certainly considered it.

 

He himself is advocating police involvement now.  Interviews under caution.  Getting people on notice and under investigation.  Maybe some tongues loostened up.  It may well obstruct the inquiry but justice delayed is justice lost.

Edited March 27, 2024 by Victorian

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

Very senior people and the lead lawyer were told first hand by the independent auditors that there was a serious problem with the evidence provided during convictions.  The auditors specifically advised that the CEO (Vennells) should be informed before giving evidence to parliament.  The missing piece is the proof of whether she was informed.

 

Liam Byrne is clear that interviews under caution are now critical.  Some people are now nailed to the wall.  Police investigation might just get the guilty to start talking and trying to do deals.  

 

Vennells takes a step nearer to prison. 

When the " lead lawyer" takes the stand at the inquiry I hope she will be asked to explain what caused her to literally walk out thd door with no warning, no explanation.  I suspect she knew what was coming and no conspiracy at the PO could cover this up. 

 

One thing that does continue to bug me us this: Fujitsu were altering post masters accounts but it's never been made clear how this was allowed to  happen ie did Fujitsu design it this way and tell PO or did they simply give themselves this facility to fix the problems that arose.

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, periodictabledancer said:

When the " lead lawyer" takes the stand at the inquiry I hope she will be asked to explain what caused her to literally walk out thd door with no warning, no explanation.  I suspect she knew what was coming and no conspiracy at the PO could cover this up. 

 

One thing that does continue to bug me us this: Fujitsu were altering post masters accounts but it's never been made clear how this was allowed to  happen ie did Fujitsu design it this way and tell PO or did they simply give themselves this facility to fix the problems that arose.

Its a pertinent question.     If Fujitsu had an ounce of credibility/integrity  as a producer of bespoke business software for major clients, then they should NEVER be incorporating back-door methods of altering data or software programs in the live environment into any application.     Its unethical and potentially fraudulent.

 

Having said that, most operating systems back then had a built-in utility which enabled data to be changed/added/deleted - not part of the Horizon application - but it ought to have been the duty of  the software company (i.e. Fujitsu) to organise security settings & a procedure with audit trails and signoffs to ensure that such a utility could  either NEVER be used in the live environment, or at the very least limit its use to one or two trusted employees who would have to log details of when and why something was being changed. 

 

It seems likely to me that senior people in the PO must have become aware quite quickly that such a utility existed, and they were happy to leave  data "corrections" to  the Fujitsu helpdesk folk.   That in itself is incredibly unprofessional (verging on fraudulent), but the wider decision just to carry on letting the SPMs use a malfunctioning computer system (i.e. a cover-up to avoid  embarrassment & ridicule for themselves) is even worse.

 

imo, the bottom line is that IT management in the PO along with IT management at Fujitsu have been negligent and unprofessional throughout this whole saga.      Its baffling to me how a fairly easy-to-understand process within a  Post Office branch involving  stock control, retail & accounting can produce such mayhem, yet other Fujitsu applications within Govt departments (allegedly !!) work fine.          Or is the Govt hiding something ?

Edit - anyone would expect full & rigorous end-to-end system testing (prior to go-live) to have shown up these deficiencies, which ought to have been remedied and re-testing  taken place.  

Edited March 27, 2024 by Lone Striker

[periodictabledancer]

8 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Its a pertinent question.     If Fujitsu had an ounce of credibility/integrity  as a producer of bespoke business software for major clients, then they should NEVER be incorporating back-door methods of altering data or software programs in the live environment into any application.     Its unethical and potentially fraudulent.

 

Having said that, most operating systems back then had a built-in utility which enabled data to be changed/added/deleted - not part of the Horizon application - but it ought to have been the duty of  the software company (i.e. Fujitsu) to organise security settings & a procedure with audit trails and signoffs to ensure that such a utility could  either NEVER be used in the live environment, or at the very least limit its use to one or two trusted employees who would have to log details of when and why something was being changed. 

 

It seems likely to me that senior people in the PO must have become aware quite quickly that such a utility existed, and they were happy to leave  data "corrections" to  the Fujitsu helpdesk folk.   That in itself is incredibly unprofessional (verging on fraudulent), but the wider decision just to carry on letting the SPMs use a malfunctioning computer system (i.e. a cover-up to avoid  embarrassment & ridicule for themselves) is even worse.

 

imo, the bottom line is that IT management in the PO along with IT management at Fujitsu have been negligent and unprofessional throughout this whole saga.      Its baffling to me how a fairly easy-to-understand process within a  Post Office branch involving  stock control, retail & accounting can produce such mayhem, yet other Fujitsu applications within Govt departments (allegedly !!) work fine.          Or is the Govt hiding something ?

Yeah, my point being this is potential fraud on a monumental scale. 

 

And FJ staff knew about it.

 

There's also a question mark over whether POs IT systems were  ever fit for purpose - and that includes everything that predates Horizon.

 

[Footballfirst]

The BBC is reporting that it has seen another unpublished report into Fujitsu's ability to amend branch data.  The document has been uploaded to the Inquiry's website.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68663750

 

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/pol00028070-deloittes-bramble-draft-report

 

The report highlights unattributed transactions worth £1.3m for a small subset of branches. 

[davemclaren]

On 27/03/2024 at 22:38, Lone Striker said:

Its a pertinent question.     If Fujitsu had an ounce of credibility/integrity  as a producer of bespoke business software for major clients, then they should NEVER be incorporating back-door methods of altering data or software programs in the live environment into any application.     Its unethical and potentially fraudulent.

 

Having said that, most operating systems back then had a built-in utility which enabled data to be changed/added/deleted - not part of the Horizon application - but it ought to have been the duty of  the software company (i.e. Fujitsu) to organise security settings & a procedure with audit trails and signoffs to ensure that such a utility could  either NEVER be used in the live environment, or at the very least limit its use to one or two trusted employees who would have to log details of when and why something was being changed. 

 

It seems likely to me that senior people in the PO must have become aware quite quickly that such a utility existed, and they were happy to leave  data "corrections" to  the Fujitsu helpdesk folk.   That in itself is incredibly unprofessional (verging on fraudulent), but the wider decision just to carry on letting the SPMs use a malfunctioning computer system (i.e. a cover-up to avoid  embarrassment & ridicule for themselves) is even worse.

 

imo, the bottom line is that IT management in the PO along with IT management at Fujitsu have been negligent and unprofessional throughout this whole saga.      Its baffling to me how a fairly easy-to-understand process within a  Post Office branch involving  stock control, retail & accounting can produce such mayhem, yet other Fujitsu applications within Govt departments (allegedly !!) work fine.          Or is the Govt hiding something ?

Edit - anyone would expect full & rigorous end-to-end system testing (prior to go-live) to have shown up these deficiencies, which ought to have been remedied and re-testing  taken place.  

Ach, everything can be 'fixed' with a bit of SQL via SPUFI...or whatever the ICL/Fujitsu equivalent is. 😜

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

Ach, everything can be 'fixed' with a bit of SQL via SPUFI...or whatever the ICL/Fujitsu equivalent is. 😜

So that's how you did it Dave. 😇

 

From my experience, we had an audit trail whereby any production file that was amended by a support person, in response to a problem, had to go through a process that compared the original and amended files to identify the changes. The amended file was then given a unique identifier before it was used. Support staff had no access to the production files other than to take a copy for problem analysis.

Edited March 29, 2024 by Footballfirst

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

So that's how you did it Dave. 😇

 

From my experience, we had an audit trail whereby any production file that was amended by a support person, in response to a problem, had to go through a process that compared the original and amended files to identify the changes. The amended file was then given a unique identifier before it was used. Support staff had no access to the production files other than to take a copy for problem analysis.

In the 80s and early 90s some places were a bit less robust, shall we say. 

[Lone Striker]

11 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Ach, everything can be 'fixed' with a bit of SQL via SPUFI...or whatever the ICL/Fujitsu equivalent is. 😜

Indeed.   I wonder if the Horizon scandal inquiry will  get to the bottom of  exactly how the Fujitsu   IT folk were actually able to change  live data while retaining a degree of "integrity" within the overall database, and whether anyone within IT management  was asked to approve each instance.     

10 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

So that's how you did it Dave. 😇

 

From my experience, we had an audit trail whereby any production file that was amended by a support person, in response to a problem, had to go through a process that compared the original and amended files to identify the changes. The amended file was then given a unique identifier before it was used. Support staff had no access to the production files other than to take a copy for problem analysis.

That  sounds similar to our setup ..... erm, eventually.... after our auditors had  gone through us like a dose of salts for having  "sub-optimal" security procedures.        

[periodictabledancer]

On 27/03/2024 at 22:38, Lone Striker said:

Its a pertinent question.     If Fujitsu had an ounce of credibility/integrity ....

The short answer to that is, they don't (or they didn't back then). .

And I can say that from personal experience of working with them for around ten years.

This was a business that was driven by profit and they would do anything in the pursuit of it.  Their people and their business practices were, in my experience, utterly disgraceful & unprofessional. 

I can state as  a matter of fact that they deliberately tried to sabotage a £1 billion MOD contract we worked on with them in order that we would be removed as prime contractor and they'd take our place.  This was well known to government who weren't being fooled by them - bearing in mind Fujitsu weren't appointed main contractor in the first place because of their abysmal failings in their delivery of an existing MOD contract. 

When the current inquiry closes there should be another public inquiry into the bsuniess practices of Fijitsu but I very much doubt there will be. 

 

Edit ; the idea that government didn't know what FJ were up to in terms of their general conduct & sharp practices doesn't stand up to scrutiny and it goes way beyond Horizon. 

Edited March 29, 2024 by periodictabledancer

[Lone Striker]

8 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

The short answer to that is, they don't (or they didn't back then). .

And I can say that from personal experience of working with them for around ten years.

This was a business that was driven by profit and they would do anything in the pursuit of it.  Their people and their business practices were, in my experience, utterly disgraceful & unprofessional. 

I can state as  a matter of fact that they deliberately tried to sabotage a £1 billion MOD contract we worked on with them in order that we would be removed as prime contractor and they'd take our place.  This was well known to government who weren't being fooled by them - bearing in mind Fujitsu weren't appointed main contractor in the first place because of their abysmal failings in their delivery of an existing MOD contract. 

When the current inquiry closes there should be another public inquiry into the bsuniess practices of Fijitsu but I very much doubt there will be. 

You've got good (well, bad 🙂) experience of working alongside them.

 

  From the outside,  they seem to be very aggressive in the way they push themselves forward to bid for Govt contracts - apparently still doing it despite declaring they wouldn't while the Public Inquiry is ongoing -  and  you'd have to wonder why they keep getting trusted by Govt departments as a reliable IT partner for new business.    Is there some  secret kickback  financial connection between high-ranking officials in the Civil Service and the owners or Board of Fujitsu - their continuing domination of Govt contracts seems odd, to put it mildly.   Surely the old "British ICL" reasoning must be long gone by now ? 

 

 

[milky_26]

On 27/03/2024 at 22:38, Lone Striker said:

Its a pertinent question.     If Fujitsu had an ounce of credibility/integrity 

big businesses have a history of doing what is best for the bottom line rather than what is right. Just look at ford pinto scandal of the 70s/80s in the USA. If they were hit from behind in a crash the rear doors would not be able to be opened and the fuel tank would burn/explode, ford determined it was cheaper to pay compensation to those in crashes rather than recall and fix the problem. 

 

For an even more recent example just look at some water companies, they seem to have worked out it is cheaper to take the fines for dumping raw sewage into rivers/streams etc rather than actually properly treat all the sewage they are supposed to

[periodictabledancer]

7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

You've got good (well, bad 🙂) experience of working alongside them.

 

  From the outside,  they seem to be very aggressive in the way they push themselves forward to bid for Govt contracts - apparently still doing it despite declaring they wouldn't while the Public Inquiry is ongoing -  and  you'd have to wonder why they keep getting trusted by Govt departments as a reliable IT partner for new business.    Is there some  secret kickback  financial connection between high-ranking officials in the Civil Service and the owners or Board of Fujitsu - their continuing domination of Govt contracts seems odd, to put it mildly.   Surely the old "British ICL" reasoning must be long gone by now ? 

 

 

It's easier to go with the status quo. In principle it should be possible for govt to extricate itself from any current contract and award it to anyone they choose but the reality is, it rarely ever happens , mainly because (in my experience) there are so few companies big enough who can actually do the job (and in many cases do it better).

In the US, major IT services companies will win US govt contracts and routinely off-shore as much of it as they can - but that doesn't really happen in the UK* because there was a public outcry when the Yanks tried to do that with HMRC related work (their defence being , there would be no personal data involved , it would be the code writing & service management stuff). Even so, the Tories were still outraged that UK taxpayers money would be paying for jobs in India , P Rico, Jamaica   etc when the plan was to pay for decent jobs in the UK. 

 

* IMO, the inablity to do this discourages some companies from even bidding in the first place. 

[Victorian]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/07/paula-vennells-post-office-postmasters-channel-four-news/

 

Out of hiding.  Immediately doorstepped by Channel 4 News.  Must have been tipped off in some way.  Back into hiding most probably.

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/07/paula-vennells-post-office-postmasters-channel-four-news/

 

Out of hiding.  Immediately doorstepped by Channel 4 News.  Must have been tipped off in some way.  Back into hiding most probably.

Not really, she's slated to be at inquiry next week IIRC. 

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, periodictabledancer said:

Not really, she's slated to be at inquiry next week IIRC. 

No, she's due in the 3rd week of May for 3 days.       3rd week of April is Susan Crichton and PO legal team (or should that be illegal team)

 

  

[periodictabledancer]

6 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

No, she's due in the 3rd week of May for 3 days.       3rd week of April is Susan Crichton and PO legal team (or should that be illegal team)

 

  

But she will be at the inquiry. 👍

[Lone Striker]

13 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

But she will be at the inquiry. 👍

Yes,  but we have to wonder how she'll play it.  The recent C4 info has placed her inches away from being implicated in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by approving a   massive fraud on the people she continued to blame, prosecute and harass.   Not to mention the huge sums of public money being spent doing so.

 

She ought to have nowhere to hide when she appears at the Inquiry.   I wonder if she'll  seek a delay due to "health issues"  ? That would only delay the inevitable though.     Maybe she'll  try to claim that the C4 recordings only revealed an intention  to inform her of the Fujitsu bombshell, but it never went beyond that ?    Or will she live up to her upstanding Christian values of honesty and admit some form of guilt ?

 

 

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Yes,  but we have to wonder how she'll play it.  The recent C4 info has placed her inches away from being implicated in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by approving a   massive fraud on the people she continued to blame, prosecute and harass.   Not to mention the huge sums of public money being spent doing so.

 

She ought to have nowhere to hide when she appears at the Inquiry.   I wonder if she'll  seek a delay due to "health issues"  ? That would only delay the inevitable though.     Maybe she'll  try to claim that the C4 recordings only revealed an intention  to inform her of the Fujitsu bombshell, but it never went beyond that ?    Or will she live up to her upstanding Christian values of honesty and admit some form of guilt ?

 

 

 

I just wonder if the recently released recordings has been done with the intention of holding back the final smoking gun proof that she did know the full import and covered it up,  including her evidence in parliament.  To draw her in to lying about it again at the inquiry.  Then the coup de grace to be published.  

[Footballfirst]

28 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Yes,  but we have to wonder how she'll play it.  The recent C4 info has placed her inches away from being implicated in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by approving a   massive fraud on the people she continued to blame, prosecute and harass.   Not to mention the huge sums of public money being spent doing so.

 

She ought to have nowhere to hide when she appears at the Inquiry.   I wonder if she'll  seek a delay due to "health issues"  ? That would only delay the inevitable though.     Maybe she'll  try to claim that the C4 recordings only revealed an intention  to inform her of the Fujitsu bombshell, but it never went beyond that ?    Or will she live up to her upstanding Christian values of honesty and admit some form of guilt ?

Channel 4 - "In the new audio, the Post Office's chief lawyer Susan Crichton admits twice that Paula Vennells had been briefed about the allegation"

 

Susan Crichton is due to give evidence to the inquiry on 23 April, i.e. before Paula Vennels gives evidence. I'm sure that she will be asked directly if she did brief Vennels in 2013. Her answer, if positive, will force Vennels to either admit it or deny it. Either way one of them will be deemed to have lied.  

[periodictabledancer]

The inquiry opens today with the news PO has "disclosed" ANOTHER 73,000 documents of which 67,000 relate to the current & next phases of the inquiry.

 

Not clear where this is going : can they possibly proceed ? Not clear yet. 

[Victorian]

Counsel to the inquiry seems to be suggesting the Post Office are still at it regarding disclosure of documents.  Dragging their heels and making enormous disclosures,  leaving insufficient time to prepare for questions to key people appearing.  

[periodictabledancer]

It's show time !

We're cracking on and Alan Bates is being sworn in. 

[stuart500]

This phase should really nail who knew what and when. Police will have no excuse to delay their own investigations into which (if any) laws have been broken. 

It wouldn't preclude further charges being brought if necessary after the full findings off the inquiry are published.

[Victorian]

Pretty clear from that exchange that Alan Bates was terminated frim his contract because he has too competent,  too smart,  too determined to fight his case.  He engaged with POL at every opportunity and attempted to have POL engage in good faith and resolve problems fairly.  POL simply didn't like being challenged and wanted him out of the way.

[Lone Striker]

6 hours ago, Victorian said:

Pretty clear from that exchange that Alan Bates was terminated frim his contract because he has too competent,  too smart,  too determined to fight his case.  He engaged with POL at every opportunity and attempted to have POL engage in good faith and resolve problems fairly.  POL simply didn't like being challenged and wanted him out of the way.

Yep.  Disgraceful behaviour by the PO.  From his comments, its not too fanciful to think that he had a much better grasp on what a decent IT system should look like, how it should perform and what automation it should provide.   He's quite a smart & switched-on guy.      Instead of sacking him, the PO  should have hired him  to be part of the project team !!
 

 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Yep.  Disgraceful behaviour by the PO.  From his comments, its not too fanciful to think that he had a much better grasp on what a decent IT system should look like, how it should perform and what automation it should provide.   He's quite a smart & switched-on guy.      Instead of sacking him, the PO  should have hired him  to be part of the project team !!
 

 

 

As an irony,  yes.  He could have been invaluable as someone to advise on a whole range of things.  Record keeping.  Accounting.  I.T. systems and how to access and interrogate data.

 

But it's clear that Bates' skills and acumen were highly unwelcome and completely at odds with POL's agenda.  He is the veritable man who knew too much.