The sub-postmasters scandal

[cjcregg]

This isn't a political scandal, it's corporate.

[honeybee13]

I'd say it's both. Alan Bates asked Ed Davey for a meeting several years before the story came to light. Davey, the postal services minister, refused and said that Post Office IT was nothing to do with him.

[cjcregg]

So exactly what actual criminal offence do you believe he committed here? 

Think about it.

[cjcregg]

The problem is that although the ITV drama series has undoubtedly done a lot of good in raising the profile of the scandal, it's clearly had the negative effect of stirring hysterical emotions from people who think you can hold people criminally liable for making questionable political decisions. 

Ironically, calling for Ed Davey to be 'interviewed under caution' by the Metropolitan Police (for not agreeing to a meeting) mirrors the same criminal witch hunt mentality in prosecuting sub postmasters. 

If there's a need for any real political accountability then the focus should be on Labour's role and that is reflected in the Statutory Inquiry's decision to issue two section 9 requests for evidence from Tony Blair, who gave the go ahead for Horizon despite being told about concerns with the reliability and being reassured by Peter Mandelson that Horizon was ''robust''. Ring any bells? 

WITN06080100 Anthony Blair – Witness Statement 14112022.pdf (postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk)

As lousy as that was it wasn't a criminal offence.

The real criminal accountability should be aimed at those that actually did the prosecuting and not the nearest convenient politician. In particular people like Rob Wilson, head of criminal law at PO, John Scott, head of PO security (who is alleged to have shredded documents) and PO prosecuting solicitor Jarnail Singh.  

I would warmly encourage anyone who has an interest in knowing what went wrong and who was responsible to watch the car-crash testimony of Jarnail Singh at the inquiry. You only need to watch 10 minutes of it to wonder how this man ever qualified as a solicitor, let alone become the Post Office's prosecutor.

 

I also think some of the decisions of the criminal courts should be looked at when convicting victims of theft when there was no evidence of such.

      

[honeybee13]

I wasn't suggesting that politicans broke the law but I think the roles of successive ministers should be looked at. That seems to be starting. I think at the very least they should have intervened to make the PO pay compensation in a timely manner.

Let's also look at what was said and done by Fujitsu and its impact on guitly verdicts.

This blog mentions Rob Wilson, John Scott, also David Pardoe.

Criminal conspiracy: slowly joining the dots – Post Office Scandal

WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK

---

A throwaway line in a piece of oral evidence at the Horizon IT inquiry yesterday may have revealed more about the...

The July 2020 edition alleges 'government' was involved in the cover up and details Paula Vennells' evidence to to the Business select committee.

https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-1-how-and.html

A quote from the blog. 'Somewhere, a political decision was taken that it was "better" to cover up the truth (or, technically,  make it almost impossible to uncover), than to bite the bullet and deal with the fallout. '

[cjcregg]

For fear of stating the bleeding obvious, you were absolutely suggesting politicians broke the law by supporting the idea that Ed Davey should be interviewed under caution by the Met. 

Can't you see that? 

 

 

[honeybee13]

That isn't what I meant, sorry.

[cjcregg]

Fair enough and you're right about looking at Fujitsu too. Their employees are scheduled to be giving evidence to the inquiry the week after next, although Gareth Jenkins is yet to be scheduled due to ongoing late disclosure issues by PO.

There are lots & lots of different and separate issues that combined to make this scandal happen but I go back to my first post in this thread about the prosecution powers the PO has as being the key cause.

Although there are a few other bodies that have the powers to directly prosecute (without the involvement of the police investigating and Criminal Prosecution Service prosecuting), for example RSPCA, PO are in the unique position of not just being the investigator and prosecutor but also the 'victim'. This is a clear and fundamental conflict of interest which needs to be resolved to prevent this mess ever occurring again.

[honeybee13]

A Sunday Times investigation is out today.

'The Sunday Times can also disclose that Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, was warned 12 years ago that legal action against the Post Office over the accounting scandal could leave the taxpayer exposed to “astronomical” costs.'

https://archive.is/7Cah2

[cjcregg]

He's right.

[BankFodder]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-paula-vennells-of-her-cbe

 

[honeybee13]

Thank you, BF. Apparently there are other petitions with Change.org, some quite small and one with 900,000 signatures. I don't know what the wording is and I'm not sure about signing two petitions.

[BankFodder]

I have already said earlier that Paula Vennells should not be allowed to surrender her CBE. It should be stripped of her.

In terms of the convictions, there should be a piece of emergency legislation to cancel all of the convictions and the post office then be given a limited time – say two years – to prosecute any sub- postmaster who they believed had been dishonest and negating they have evidence.

Of course the post office won't prosecute anybody – which will underline even more the fact that they never really believed in their guilt anyway.

The very idea that these people should have to appeal against the convictions is repugnant and use a wonderful phrase which came up recently, would itself be "an affront to justice".

[tobyjugg2]

recharge to the PO when/if found guilty, and prosecute all the PO officials who have damaged/destroyed over 700 lives + families

- Heads of PO + PO IT + PO CFO as a minimum during the WHOLE period

Fujitsu? depends if anything they did was underhand without the knowledge of PO, or if it was all 'above board' with PO as customer no matter how lacking in competence. (Timescales may have been forced against IT advice for example - and user testing should have passed before any implementation)

 

- and not just surrender 'honors' - but criminal charges where the tory-esque never-ending claims of 'incompetence/how could i know just because its my job' rather than criminality - will undoubtedly be heard - and should be up front refuted as an excuse. With positions of responsibility COMES RESPONSIBILITY

- same with water companies.

- with fines+jail+banning from offices of responsibility as just punishments

Edited January 7 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Anyone know how this 600,000 (each) payment is funded - whos paying - if more than a handful even get paid this decade?

Hope its coming out of a senior staff involved bonus and pension clawback? Haven't RM repeatedly said they will declare bankruptcy if they even have to pay workers a living wage, let alone pay compensation?

 

Edited January 7 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I believe the PO is currently paying out but if they run out of money it will be HMG/taxpayer.

I may already have said I think bonuses should be clawed back from PO executives.

[honeybee13]

The Horizon scandal has appeared on Sunak's radar.

Rishi Sunak considers plan to exonerate Post Office Horizon scandal victims | Post Office | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

PM reveals government is also considering plans to strip Post Office of its powers to prosecute

 

[cjcregg]

Well that's a start at least. I think PO was originally granted the power to run prosecutions in the days of 'stand up & deliver' highway men mail robberies hundreds of years ago.

But it wouldn't have help the likes of Lee Castleton or Alan Bates as they were never prosecuted but still suffered. 

[tobyjugg2]

I find interesting the reports that those who stood up to them and got legal representation  - the PO backed down, although still apparently destroyed peoples lives.

THAT seems to show that the 'prosecutions were at least known to be highly questionable - yet they still carried on.

[honeybee13]

Here's another page of the blog I linked earlier. It shows government involvement with the PO, as told by Paula Vennells.

Vennells' statement is clear. She is saying our elected Ministers knew what the Post Office was up to. Government lawyers knew what the Post Office was up to. Civil servants and business experts like Susannah Storey, Richard Callard and Tom Cooper knew what the Post Office was up to. And they, at the very least, let it happen.

 

Post Office Trial: The Post Office cover up, part 2: They wanted it all to go away

WWW.POSTOFFICETRIAL.COM

---

Reporting the High Court class action against the UK Post Office

And:

Vennells' shareholder-knew-everything take contrasts starkly with Business Minister Lord Callanan's recent suggestion that the government was "misled" by the Post Office. According to Ms Vennells, the government knew and knows everything. 

 

[tobyjugg2]

If as stated, that does seem to allege political collusion in the corporate crime. Drag the directors into court along with the minutes of the meetings (LOL - maybe) and like Mone and PPEmedpro they'll soon start squealing.

- and then prosecute them all.

Bet the minutes have been lost and nobody recalls or recognises ...

- although they didnt forget their pay

Edited January 7 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

It has similarities to the Covid inquiry. They would rather appear to be idiots by claiming not to remember than to admit the truth.

I believe Vennells and other execs are appearing at the Horizon inquiry this year.

[honeybee13]

There's a hearing on 12th January because the judge is concerned about disclosure.

Sir Wyn Williams to hold further hearing on Post Office disclosure issues

WWW.POSTOFFICEHORIZONINQUIRY.ORG.UK

---

Inquiry Chair issues statement following 5 September Disclosure Hearing 15 September 2023

 

[tobyjugg2]

reading through that i think you could be excused for thinking the excuse building exercise was compiled by a professional con-man with a deep inside knowledge

- needs cutting through the 'constructed' excuses

 

It was their responsibility to ensure that criminal or arguably criminal situations did not occur

They must/should have been aware that people were being accused of crimes while there were issues with the software systems, and also must have been VERY aware that some were apparently having charges/accusations dropped when they 'lawyered up'

They used false/incomplete reports to prosecute people

They demanded money presumably with menaces while evidence was known to be dubious at best - and kept that money even after it was blatantly clear that the evidence they used was at VERY best unreliable

 

Consider: there was no way the books would balance even with a basic forensic accounting attempt (with the alleged missing amounts)

Edited January 7 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I think also part of the forensic accounting exercise was hampered by there being no paper evidence to speak of, it was all on Horizon.