Horizon IT - Post Office - Public Enquiry

[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.

[periodictabledancer]

9 hours ago, Victorian said:

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.  

I keep hoping Sir Wynn will haul Nick Read in and ask him : why is it your organisation so often , at the very last minute, sends me a letter telling me you have found yet more thousands of documents ? 

I'd like to see the relevant responsible government minister stepping in (as if) and making it clear , from now on, all directors remuneration and job performance ratings will be linked to how POL performs in delivering on its obligations to the inquiry. 

[periodictabledancer]

This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. £5.12 "defecit" on an ATM. 

 

[Victorian]

Jason Beers's really going for it.  Listing and recording a whole raft of lies to James Arbuthnot and other MPs,  co-opted and sanctioned by Paula Vennels and others POL management.  

[Mikey1874]

Was pretty devastating evidence (again) today told calmly by 2 pillars of the establishment. 

 

Good introduction to the Post Office evidence starting tomorrow.

[Footballfirst]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Was pretty devastating evidence (again) today told calmly by 2 pillars of the establishment. 

 

Good introduction to the Post Office evidence starting tomorrow.

Hodgkinson was a former chair of POL and a non exec director of Royal Mail Holdings plc.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Was pretty devastating evidence (again) today told calmly by 2 pillars of the establishment. 

 

Good introduction to the Post Office evidence starting tomorrow.

 

A few takes from today.

 

Around 2012/2013,  Vennels was quite categoric to James Arbuthnot and a group of MPs that every criminal and civil prosecution had been found in favour of POL.  The truth is that at least half a dozen criminal cases had been thrown out or people acquitted by that time.  She was also categoric that no faults had been identified in Horizon.  The truth is that there was a list of identified (and named) bugs that were known.  When JA and the MPs began to get involved,  that would have been the time to realise that the game was up.  That their (cack handed) cover up would not last the course.  It's quite fantastic that top executives would attempt to mislead MPs with lies that were easily uncovered by looking at the reality of failed prosecutions,  which are a matter of public record.

 

They also routinely misled JA and later on,  Anthony Hooper about the terms of reference and agreed remits of their positions in mediation processes.  They routinely misrepresented things that people said in meetings,  as well as things people said in correspondence not involving representatives of POL.  They seem to be living in a bizarre alterative reality where they were af will to manipulate anyone of their choosing.

 

Not only is this by far the greatest ever conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  It's also fairly clear that they were really shit at creating the conspiracy.  All the more damning that it took so long to get it into the light.

[Mikey1874]

Also made the point obvious all the time, that there's no way so many post masters/ mistresses would steal money when they had to account for it every day. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

Also made the point obvious all the time, that there's no way so many post masters/ mistresses would steal money when they had to account for it every day. 

 

 

Said this from the outset.  The numbers of alleged cases involved is enough on it's own to raise the fundamental concern that something else must be the truth,  other than a never ending list of SPMs committing fraud.  POL acted as their own prosecuting agency but regardless,  the wider legal system should have become concerned by the scale,  volume and similarities of cases occurring.  It's quite disturbing that so many prosecutions could continue without some kind of red flag being signalled within records and agencies.

[Lone Striker]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

 

Said this from the outset.  The numbers of alleged cases involved is enough on it's own to raise the fundamental concern that something else must be the truth,  other than a never ending list of SPMs committing fraud.  POL acted as their own prosecuting agency but regardless,  the wider legal system should have become concerned by the scale,  volume and similarities of cases occurring.  It's quite disturbing that so many prosecutions could continue without some kind of red flag being signalled within records and agencies.

Totally agree.  Its almost as if the court  system had an inherent bias towards  accepting without much question remarkably similar  "evidence" from another agency of the state, time after time after time.  

 

Another  pertinent question is -  what magical power did Paula Vennels hold over Govt ministers with PO responsibility ?  They all seem to have accepted her regular explanations about Horizon (everything's fine, nothing to see here) and the huge waiting list of SPMs facing prosecution in the courts (we've got the evidence that they're all thieves) without much  question.  They've taken the concept of "light touch oversight" to ridiculous levels.

 

 

 

 

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Totally agree.  Its almost as if the court  system had an inherent bias towards  accepting without much question remarkably similar  "evidence" from another agency of the state, time after time after time.  

 

Another  pertinent question is -  what magical power did Paula Vennels hold over Govt ministers with PO responsibility ?  They all seem to have accepted her regular explanations about Horizon (everything's fine, nothing to see here) and the huge waiting list of SPMs facing prosecution in the courts (we've got the evidence that they're all thieves) without much  question.  They've taken the concept of "light touch oversight" to ridiculous levels.

 

 

 

 

 

There's a glaring contradiction between the (then) position that POL is an arm's length organisation of operational independence and later (now) position that POL executives misled me (the Sec of State) on a routine basis.

 

If POL matters were "not a matter for government" (Ed Davey),  when and why were Secs of State in a position where they being misled by POL?  

[Bull's-eye]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

There's a glaring contradiction between the (then) position that POL is an arm's length organisation of operational independence and later (now) position that POL executives misled me (the Sec of State) on a routine basis.

 

If POL matters were "not a matter for government" (Ed Davey),  when and why were Secs of State in a position where they being misled by POL?  

 

Please tell me you weren't a Post Master as well as The King, Prime Minister, Astronaut, 5⭐ General, Surgeon, Scientist, Globe trotting Alligator castrator and all round guy ?

[JDK2020]

On 08/04/2024 at 13:14, Footballfirst said:

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.  

My money says Vennells lied.

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, JDK2020 said:

My money says Vennells lied.

I can see Vennells confirming that she was advised of the allegations, but that they were only allegations.  Also that she subsequently checked with Fujitsu who advised that there was only fully controlled and audited access to fix live problems.  

[WorldChampions1902]

15 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I can see Vennells confirming that she was advised of the allegations, but that they were only allegations.  Also that she subsequently checked with Fujitsu who advised that there was only fully controlled and audited access to fix live problems.  

I can see Vennells throwing a “sicky” and not appearing - for now. 

[Victorian]

Dave Smith.  Careful,  tense,  slippery character.  Intermittent memory.  A right *****.

[Footballfirst]

39 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Dave Smith.  Careful,  tense,  slippery character.  Intermittent memory.  A right *****.

Another one who says why that was reliant what others told him or did on his behalf.

 

The chair, however, by his own questions, seems to have a good grasp of his responsibilities and weasel words. I thought Ms Page did a good job on him at the end of his evidence re the Misra case.

Edited April 11 by Footballfirst

[Nookie Bear]

3 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

I can see Vennells throwing a “sicky” and not appearing - for now. 

 

I can see her pulling a Huw Edwards on this.

[WorldChampions1902]

22 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

I can see her pulling a Huw Edwards on this.

I wouldn’t be critical of anyone experiencing mental health issues and I think your point is bang on.
 

It is now crystal clear to anyone following this travesty that she and her fellow “thugs in suits”, knew exactly what they were doing. And she is about to be confronted with all the evidence and asked to account for her actions. She will also be fully aware of the very serious consequences of her conduct (along with a few others). All this will be surely taking a heavy toll on her health.
 

Given the impact on the lives of so many sub-postmasters and their families, it’s difficult to feel sympathy for her.

 

 

[Victorian]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Another one who says why that was reliant what others told him or did on his behalf.

 

The chair, however, by his own questions, seems to have a good grasp of his responsibilities and weasel words. I thought Ms Page did a good job on him at the end of his evidence re the Misra case.

 

As did the counsel for SPMS on Sir Michael Hodgkinson today.  It seems these counsels for core participants are free to engage in adversarial attitude.  The counsels for the inquiry very much not so.

 

 

[Ked]

Is it in posters opinions a worse miscarriage in Scotland given our legal establishment were the prosecution.

And they with held evidence.

 

[Victorian]

Just now, Ked said:

Is it in posters opinions a worse miscarriage in Scotland given our legal establishment were the prosecution.

And they with held evidence.

 

 

Well there's certainly a difference and questions to answer for the Crown Office / Fiscal.  

[Nookie Bear]

3 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

I wouldn’t be critical of anyone experiencing mental health issues and I think your point is bang on.
 

It is now crystal clear to anyone following this travesty that she and her fellow “thugs in suits”, knew exactly what they were doing. And she is about to be confronted with all the evidence and asked to account for her actions. She will also be fully aware of the very serious consequences of her conduct (along with a few others). All this will be surely taking a heavy toll on her health.
 

Given the impact on the lives of so many sub-postmasters and their families, it’s difficult to feel sympathy for her.

 

 

I just cannot comprehend why she (and other senior figures) firstly ignored the warning, then doubled down on it, and continues to try and weasel her way out of it even now. 
 

What kind of mentality is that? Or who was applying pressure on her to take the hit?

[Victorian]

Alan Cook.  Another squirmer.  Complete word soup at times.

[Footballfirst]

37 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Alan Cook.  Another squirmer.  Complete word soup at times.

The lawyer kept asking the same question about his knowledge of the PO acting as prosecutor. He repeatedly answered that he didn't know until late in his tenure. Whether or not that is a believable stance is a matter for the inquiry chair.

 

Early in his evidence he referred to "compelling evidence" in many of the cases. The lawyer for the inquiry failed to follow that up as I believe he should have.  Lets hope the core participants follow it up at the end of the session. I'd love to know what he considers to be compelling evidence.

Edited April 12 by Footballfirst

[Lone Striker]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The lawyer kept asking the same question about his knowledge of the PO acting as prosecutor. He repeatedly answered that he didn't know until late in his tenure. Whether or not that is a believable stance is a matter for the inquiry chair.

 

Early in his evidence he referred to "compelling evidence" in many of the cases. The lawyer for the inquiry failed to follow that up as I believe he should have.  Lets hope the core participants follow it up at the end of the session. I'd love to know what he considers to be compelling evidence.

I'd guess that the "compelling evidence" would be  written reports from thugs like  Stephen Bradshaw, amplified and endorsed by various rogues further up the management chain. 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Lone Striker said:

I'd guess that the "compelling evidence" would be  written reports from thugs like  Stephen Bradshaw, amplified and endorsed by various rogues further up the management chain. 

I would have asked him if a "Horizon reported shortfall" was compelling when there was no investigation into the root cause, no evidence of the SPMRs either having or spent the cash, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence etc.

[Victorian]

Cook ended up wholly implausible.  We're meant to believe that there has been a long list of Chairs,  MDs,  CEOs and COOs who were kept entirely in the dark about the major activities pertinent to these matters.

 

At the very end he's certainly put Vennels in the frame as the person who had full executive control over decisions to prosecute and on the expenditure of prosecuting.  Vennels on the spot.

[Footballfirst]

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Cook ended up wholly implausible.  We're meant to believe that there has been a long list of Chairs,  MDs,  CEOs and COOs who were kept entirely in the dark about the major activities pertinent to these matters.

 

At the very end he's certainly put Vennels in the frame as the person who had full executive control over decisions to prosecute and on the expenditure of prosecuting.  Vennels on the spot.

It has struck me that the same Chairs, MDs and CEOs must have poor communication skills, given that Rod Ismay and Dave Pardoe seem to have carried out reviews aimed at providing a robust defence of the operation of Horizon, yet those execs claim not to have instructed the pair to produce such a defence, despite evidence to the contrary.

[Lone Striker]

16 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

I just cannot comprehend why she (and other senior figures) firstly ignored the warning, then doubled down on it, and continues to try and weasel her way out of it even now. 
 

What kind of mentality is that? Or who was applying pressure on her to take the hit?

It sounds fantastical and almost beyond belief, but maybe there was some kind of corporate dynamic at play whereby the initial suspicion of theft by some SPMs gathered enough momentum at middle & senior management level  to drown out any voices of reason. Then when Second Sight reported that the reliability & integrity of Horizon was fecked, it became a "circle the wagons"  mentality for Vennells & co to defend their position in the face of an increasing  number of malicious prosecutions.     Or just play for time until they could engineer a switch to a senior role at another company ?

 

Why would they continue to  do that ?  Stubbornness ? Misjudged attempt at self-preservation ?  Too scared or proud to admit they were wrong ?  Whatever the reasons, they're hopefully  in deep doo-doo now .... their CV's blemished by this horrendous episode, and court appearances hopefully on the    (ahem) "horizon".  😎

[joondalupjambo]

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It has struck me that the same Chairs, MDs and CEOs must have poor communication skills, given that Rod Ismay and Dave Pardoe seem to have carried out reviews aimed at providing a robust defence of the operation of Horizon, yet those execs claim not to have instructed the pair to produce such a defence, despite evidence to the contrary.

Could these same Chairs, MD's and CEO's been advised by their own individual lawyers to take that line knowing that there could be legal charges, civil lawsuits etc further down the line?   Hold that line and you might get away with it?

[Victorian]

22 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It has struck me that the same Chairs, MDs and CEOs must have poor communication skills, given that Rod Ismay and Dave Pardoe seem to have carried out reviews aimed at providing a robust defence of the operation of Horizon, yet those execs claim not to have instructed the pair to produce such a defence, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

I would have asked Cook (who supposedly commissioned an internal investigation and did not follow up on the progress of it) as to what action he took to inform his successor of said investigation,  as well as any recommendation to follow it's progress.  Simply leaving his position and then allowing the oversight of it to die is not the kind of expertise you would expect of someone of his position.

 

Why did you not pass on the baton of your commissioned investigation?

[Tommy Brown]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

Cook ended up wholly implausible.  We're meant to believe that there has been a long list of Chairs,  MDs,  CEOs and COOs who were kept entirely in the dark about the major activities pertinent to these matters.

 

At the very end he's certainly put Vennels in the frame as the person who had full executive control over decisions to prosecute and on the expenditure of prosecuting.  Vennels on the spot.

Cook made a complete arse of himself on particular at the end.

Sorry I've not ween watching so don't know who's who.

But the older guy gave him barrels at the end, calling him a liar.

Asked to apologise to jailed Ms Skinner, he came across as quite crass, "this will live with you a long time, it live with me a long time also" laughing a few times (nervously, most likely)

Crass though. She like others went jail, all he has is a bit shame against his name.

Hardly comparable.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Cook made a complete arse of himself on particular at the end.

Sorry I've not ween watching so don't know who's who.

But the older guy gave him barrels at the end, calling him a liar.

Asked to apologise to jailed Ms Skinner, he came across as quite crass, "this will live with you a long time, it live with me a long time also" laughing a few times (nervously, most likely)

Crass though. She like others went jail, all he has is a bit shame against his name.

Hardly comparable.

 

Yes,  very nervous,  uncomfortable type of address.  Another otherwise important type of man reduced to being a mouse.  A few have been happy to concede a perception of themselves as being failures and incompetents.  It will be interesting to see if Crozier will do so.

[Victorian]

So basically,

 

Royal Mail had internal lawyers.  POL did not.  POL prosecutions proceeded using the RM lawyers.  RM lawyers' actions relating to RM reported into the RM board,  but not their actions relating to POL.  Their actions did not report into the POL board as they were not POL personnel.

 

Their work as lawyers relating to POL prosecutions had no oversight.

[Victorian]

This investigator Jon Longman is trying to play the daft wee lad but he's up to his neck in it.  He's not sharp enough to continue a convincing line.  He's a mumbling *****.

[Victorian]

Rodric Williams (P.O. lawyer) today & tomorrow.  Another mumbling,  rambling ***********.  

 

Tomorrow there are 3x counsels for core participants who will be getting 45mins each to grill this worm.  Could be box office.

[Lone Striker]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

Rodric Williams (P.O. lawyer) today & tomorrow.  Another mumbling,  rambling ***********.  

 

Tomorrow there are 3x counsels for core participants who will be getting 45mins each to grill this worm.  Could be box office.

Either Williams is lying about the extent of his legal responsibilities at POL, or else he really is just the rubber-stamping arse-licker that his responses indicated.    Its clear from most of the evidence so far that POL has attracted & recruited some of the most unsuitable staff imaginable  over the years.   

 

 

[Ked]

I just keep being shocked at the nature of all involved .

And really the simplicity of people just being decent who were not driven to things by need .

Who and how to punish ?

[stuart500]

6 hours ago, Victorian said:

Rodric Williams (P.O. lawyer) today & tomorrow.  Another mumbling,  rambling ***********.  

 

Tomorrow there are 3x counsels for core participants who will be getting 45mins each to grill this worm.  Could be box office.

Hopefully Sam Stein is one of them. If so, he'll destroy this utter numpty of a litigation lawyer. 

[Victorian]

It's medieval.

 

SPM does nothing wrong.

Horizon creates rogue transactions.

Numbers don't and can't reconcile.

SPM gets zero help to rectify.

SPM forced to create false account.

POL impose strict liability - numbers are short = pay up + you're guilty.  

Want to avoid prison?  Plead guilty to false accounting.

SPM pleads guilty.  Finincially ruined.  Criminal record.

POL begins to twig Horizon unreliable.

SPMs appeal and third parties begin to get involved.

POL position - Horizon must be reliable because prosecutions proved so in court.  They pleaded guilty afterall.

Evidence of Horizon faults not volunteered to revisit merits of completed prosecutions and civil proceedings.  They're all case by case.  Say,  do and disclose nothing until each defence agent requests specific evidence.

[Nookie Bear]

11 hours ago, Ked said:

I just keep being shocked at the nature of all involved .

And really the simplicity of people just being decent who were not driven to things by need .

Who and how to punish ?

 

It's a damning indictment of Corporate Culture.

 

I think that's why it was such a compelling TV drama: the small man against the Big Evil Company.

[Footballfirst]

Rodric Williams is amongst the most appalling witnesses to appear before the inquiry. It's alarming that he remains employed by POL and heads the POL's involvement in one of the compensation schemes.

 

I don't want to denigrate him if he suffers from a stammer, but his manner when answering questions appears to be one of panic. It smacks of him thinking "Oh shit. How can I answer this question without incriminating myself?". Hence he resorts to the stammering, claiming not to understand the question, buying time asking Mr Beer to repeat the question, answering a different question, or resorting to the standard "I don't recall".

Edited April 19 by Footballfirst