Post Office : Raymond Grant gives evidence

[The Todal]

A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office Investigation
Manager, attempting without much success to distance himself from the
scandal.

His ridiculously short statement is here:
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/2453/download?token=ch8ok9v-

The Youtube video of him giving testimony is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dDaBGi2S5Y

He's far too busy with his new Salvation Army activities to spare time
to look at all the historical documents and refresh his memory. For one
thing, he has his dog to walk.

[GB]

I haven't watched the video, but why should he go out of his way to put
his head in a noose? This way, he honestly can say 'Can't remember'
nearly all the time. You want him to have spent days/months re-reading
1000s of pages of documents, so that he can be crucified. But, there's
no incentive for him to do so.

These inquiries should have one of two intentions:
a) To assign blame to individuals and institutions, as this one does.
b) To find out what went wrong and avoid the same thing repeating.

Those intentions are mutually exclusive, because you can't expect
witnesses to be frank if that only serves to pin blame on them.

Which do you think is a more worthwhile aim?

[The Todal]

Both can and should be legitimate aims. And a witness of fact has a duty
to co-operate and to answer questions to the best of his knowledge even
if that means giving up his time, unpaid, to read the documents. If he
can't be arsed to do that and hopes that "can't remember" will get him
off the hook, he can expect a nasty surprise. A witness summons. He'll
be forced to read the documents and to refresh his memory and maybe if
he hasn't prepared himself properly he is more likely to reveal what
mistakes he made and even make a fool of himself.

[GB]

They are both legitimate aims, but there is a conflict, so one or other
needs to be prioritised. The AAIB seems to do a better job of getting to
the bottom of things. Why do you think that is?

> And a witness of fact has a duty
> to co-operate and to answer questions to the best of his knowledge even
> if that means giving up his time, unpaid, to read the documents. If he
> can't be arsed to do that and hopes that "can't remember" will get him
> off the hook, he can expect a nasty surprise. A witness summons.  He'll
> be forced to read the documents and to refresh his memory and maybe if
> he hasn't prepared himself properly he is more likely to reveal what
> mistakes he made and even make a fool of himself.

Do you have a cite for that, please?

[Fredxx]

On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:

Why does he need his memory refreshed? If he conveniently can't remember
writing documents then that is his prerogative.

Questions can be in the negative, "Is anyone else likely to have written
the email in Exhibit X other than yourself"?

[Fredxx]

On 24/01/2024 16:09, GB wrote:

> On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:
>> A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office Investigation
>> Manager, attempting without much success to distance himself from the
>> scandal.
>>
>> His ridiculously short statement is here:
>> https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/2453/download?token=ch8ok9v-
>>
>> The Youtube video of him giving testimony is here:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dDaBGi2S5Y
>>
>> He's far too busy with his new Salvation Army activities to spare time
>> to look at all the historical documents and refresh his memory. For
>> one thing, he has his dog to walk.
>>
>
> I haven't watched the video, but why should he go out of his way to put
> his head in a noose?  This way, he honestly can say 'Can't remember'
> nearly all the time. You want him to have spent days/months re-reading
> 1000s of pages of documents, so that he can be crucified. But, there's
> no incentive for him to do so.
>
> These inquiries should have one of two intentions:
> a) To assign blame to individuals and institutions, as this one does.

In this case, yes. I have no issue with placing blame on those involved
and who lied, such as those who said to those prosecuted "you're the
only one who is in this situation".

> b) To find out what went wrong and avoid the same thing repeating.

It is obvious what has happened. The reliance on software, and the
prosecutions, for those who signed off the accounts as true when they
weren't. Some would say rightly prosecuted but nevertheless coerced into
signing them off in fear of their jobs. Some might say corporate fraud.

> Those intentions are mutually exclusive, because you can't expect
> witnesses to be frank if that only serves to pin blame on them.
>
> Which do you think is a more worthwhile aim?

The former. The history is known in hindsight. What we needed is for
corporates and individuals to feel the brunt of blame, and prosecutions
for those who perjured themselves in the prosecutions of those
individual. The shameful part is that the State owned the company and
we'll be the ones who pay compensation.

I also think where there are unlimited corporate resources, complaints
against the impartiality of judges should also be addressed robustly.

[Pancho]

On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:

> A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office Investigation
> Manager, attempting without much success to distance himself from the
> scandal.
>

AIUI, Mr Grant was a promoted postman. Not a particularly significant
actor. I watched the first half, and his answers seemed consistent with
the behaviour of a reasonable person. Not perfect, but within the normal
bounds of diligence.

The questioner made a worse impression on me. He reminded me of a
YouTube video once posted here entitled “Don't talk to the police”.
Anything you say can be twisted.

One of the problems with legal inquiries is that it is hard to judge the
significance of facts. Particularly if you are matching someone's
23-year-old recollection, against facts gleaned from data mining their
email history.

One wonders how much time and money was spent to analyse the 750 pages
Grant was asked to read, and to then find inconsistencies in Grant's
answers.

[The Todal]

I didn't expect quite so much sympathy for an employee of the Post
Office who was happy to throw sub postmasters under the bus without
seriously considering that they might be innocent. Only obeying orders.
Why persecute the poor chap for sloppy decisions he made long ago, when
he hoped to leave all that behind him? Nasty barrister, analysing the
paperwork and looking for the truth!

This reminds me of that excellent show, The Traitors. Suddenly everyone
thinks that the traitor is actually a faithful.

[GB]

I'll ask again what is the point of this inquiry? Is it to give people
like Grant a hard time in the witness box for a few hours, as some sort
of punishment? Is it to work out whom to pile the blame on?

[Clive Page]

On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:

It's interesting that he, like Paula Vennells, has gone off to be a Christian. Is this to assuage a guilty conscience, or an attempt to build up a "good character" background for when such things become important, I wonder.


--
Clive Page

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 16:37:27 UTC, GB wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 16:30, The Todal wrote:
> > On 24/01/2024 16:09, GB wrote:

SNIP

> >
> > Both can and should be legitimate aims.
> They are both legitimate aims, but there is a conflict, so one or other
> needs to be prioritised. The AAIB seems to do a better job of getting to
> the bottom of things. Why do you think that is?

Because the AAIB investigates matter of life and death, and flight crew have a duty to assist in safety.

> > And a witness of fact has a duty
> > to co-operate and to answer questions to the best of his knowledge even
> > if that means giving up his time, unpaid, to read the documents. If he
> > can't be arsed to do that and hopes that "can't remember" will get him
> > off the hook, he can expect a nasty surprise. A witness summons. He'll
> > be forced to read the documents and to refresh his memory and maybe if
> > he hasn't prepared himself properly he is more likely to reveal what
> > mistakes he made and even make a fool of himself.
> Do you have a cite for that, please?

Unlikely given the terminology.

[Pancho]

On 25/01/2024 09:38, The Todal wrote:

I didn't see any significantly sloppy decisions from Grant. I saw the
barrister attempt to build at least two misleading impressions.

The first was to give unreasonable significance to emails data-mined
from 23 years ago. In an email, Grant complained about support staff
advising a SPM that horizon was buggy. For people unfamiliar with
software, this is the type of email I would expect to find in any multi
year email history relating to support of any software product. It does
not reasonably signify Grant knew Horizon was a bad system.

Second, on at least one occasion Grant apparently tried to test the
software, reproduce a doubled up event, and failed. The barrister tried
to create the impression that someone would only test software if they
doubted it. This is a particularly pernicious misdirection, we should
doubt everything. The only way to know if things are reliable is to test
them. The legal system is the worst offender in this respect, making no
attempt to test its own reliability. Grant also made the very pertinent
point that issues might arise from user error, rather than bugs.

So, I'm not seeing evidence that Grant did things he knew to be wrong.
I'm not seeing any justification for the "only following orders" jibe.

> This reminds me of that excellent show, The Traitors. Suddenly everyone
> thinks that the traitor is actually a faithful.
>

That is life, it is hard to know who to trust.

GB has already pointed out the conflict between finding out what went
wrong and blaming people. This inquiry seem very much skewed to blaming
little people and protecting the system.

Senior managers have the responsibility to monitor and validate system
reliability, and make statistics of reliability known to investigation
teams. I would not expect someone like Grant to have access to the
information, or have the ability to process it, to form an independent
assessment that Horizon was unreliable. These things are often not
obvious, from the perspective of someone like Grant.

Little people should only be held accountable for very significant
dishonesty or incompetence.

[Martin Brown]

On 25/01/2024 10:24, GB wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 09:38, The Todal wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 21:53, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:
>>>> A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office
>>>> Investigation Manager, attempting without much success to distance
>>>> himself from the scandal.

He was just a bit player foot soldier in the whole thing. He seems to
have believed that some individuals were in fact guilty. He might even
be right about one or two of them but since the Horizon system is so
unreliable we have no way of ever knowing which are which.

He is just another peon that the senior guiding minds behind this
scandal can throw under a bus to make sure they get off scot free.

I'd start with prosecuting an jailing the senior people who ordered that
the regular meetings about major system bugs in Horizon not be minuted
(against external legal advice). From that point onwards it was
undoubtedly a deliberate conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

They can always attend court by video link when required to do so.

This whole enquiry is a time wasting farce. It is very clear that the
Post Office lied repeatedly at all levels and used solicitors to
threaten legitimate investigations into their bad practices.

I suspect it will be drawn out for long enough to cross some timeout for
statute of limitations on prosecutions boundary or other.

--
Martin Brown

[Simon Parker]

This is a Statutory Inquiry so the The Inquiries Act 2005 [1] applies.

In the instant case, Section 21 thereof [2].

It should be noted that Mr Grant's appearance before the Inquiry was as
the result of a Section 21 notice served on him after he had initially
refused to provide a witness statement and appear before the inquiry.

I found it noteworthy that his prepared opening statement, which he
insisted on reading verbatim, about how busy he was and why he should
not have to co-operate with the inquiry was longer than his witness
statement.

Regards

S.P.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/contents

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/section/21

[GB]

On 25/01/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 16:37, GB wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 16:30, The Todal wrote:
>
>>> And a witness of fact has a duty to co-operate and to answer
>>> questions to the best of his knowledge even if that means giving up
>>> his time, unpaid, to read the documents. If he can't be arsed to do
>>> that and hopes that "can't remember" will get him off the hook, he
>>> can expect a nasty surprise. A witness summons.  He'll be forced to
>>> read the documents and to refresh his memory and maybe if he hasn't
>>> prepared himself properly he is more likely to reveal what mistakes
>>> he made and even make a fool of himself.
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that, please?
>
> This is a Statutory Inquiry so the The Inquiries Act 2005 [1] applies.
>
> In the instant case, Section 21 thereof [2].
>
> It should be noted that Mr Grant's appearance before the Inquiry was as
> the result of a Section 21 notice served on him after he had initially
> refused to provide a witness statement and appear before the inquiry.

I was asking for a citation for Todal's point that Mr Grant had a duty
to do loads of homework before the hearing, and if he didn't he could
'expect a nasty surprise'.

There's nothing in S21 about that. So, is there some other statute or
case law Todal was relying on?

I take it that in fact Mr Grant didn't get any nasty surprises?

If there's no compulsion to read many, many pages of evidence before the
hearing, Mr Grant is perfectly right if he simply answered questions
with "Can't remember" (assuming that to be true), and his witness
statement could effectively also be "Can't remember".

>
> I found it noteworthy that his prepared opening statement, which he
> insisted on reading verbatim, about how busy he was and why he should
> not have to co-operate with the inquiry was longer than his witness
> statement.

Perhaps he really thought he couldn't add much to the process?

[GB]

On 25/01/2024 11:26, Martin Brown wrote:

> This whole enquiry is a time wasting farce. It is very clear that the
> Post Office lied repeatedly at all levels and used solicitors to
> threaten legitimate investigations into their bad practices.

It seems extraordinary that the Post Office was so keen on private
prosecutions. Why not just leave it to the police?

[GB]

On 25/01/2024 11:32, Pancho wrote:

> Senior managers have the responsibility to monitor and validate system
> reliability, and make statistics of reliability known to investigation
> teams.

Ultimately the CEO is responsible, but I wouldn't expect the CEO to
monitor system reliability personally. I'd expect that to be done at a
middle management level.

I haven't been following the inquiry at all closely, but I don't think
we have heard much from middle management?

[Roger Hayter]

Clearly because the police would have asked awkward questions, perhaps even
investigated Horizon's reliability themselves.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

The finding that there were many major bugs, and the decision not to minute
meetings with Fujitsu (for instance), must surely have been matters the CEO
was at least made aware of, even if not asked for a decision on them.

--
Roger Hayter

[Martin Brown]

The police might have been more diligent and followed correct process by
disclosing relevant information to the defence or at least asking a few
more questions about the supposed "robustness" of Horizon data.

*SO* much easier for the PO to be judge, jury and executioner.

I don't hold much hope of the police getting a successful prosecution
for fraud against the key players either - their record for successfully
prosecuting serious large scale frauds is hardly stellar.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/fraud-focus-is-the-serious-fraud-office-fit-for-purpose/

--
Martin Brown

[GB]

According to WP, the post office has been prosecuting since 1683!

[Philip Hole]

Read an AAIB report and see how an investigation should be carried out.

Facts are the priority aim. Personnel are not named. They are identified
by their status.

The report is based on 'what went wrong/ how can the problem be prevented'.

Not 'who is to blame'

Flop

[Fredxx]

On 25/01/2024 11:23, Clive Page wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:
>> A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office Investigation
>> Manager, attempting without much success to distance himself from the
>> scandal.
>>
>> His ridiculously short statement is here:
>> https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/2453/download?token=ch8ok9v-
>>
>> The Youtube video of him giving testimony is here:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dDaBGi2S5Y
>>
>> He's far too busy with his new Salvation Army activities to spare time
>> to look at all the historical documents and refresh his memory. For
>> one thing, he has his dog to walk.
>
> It's interesting that he, like Paula Vennells, has gone off to be a
> Christian.

I thought Paula Vennells was a life-long christian believer. What makes
you think otherwise?

One advantage of being a christian is you're absolved for everything bad
you do, ensuring you don't have a conscience. Aren't christian morals great.

[Clive Page]

Well she might have been a life-long believer, figures suggest that nearly half the population of the country are, but most believers don't go on to be an ordained minister and get short-listed for promotion to Bishop, as she did. That is taking things to extremes, in my opinion.


--
Clive Page

[GB]

On 25/01/2024 18:01, Philip Hole wrote:


> The report is based on 'what went wrong/ how can the problem be prevented'.

Quite. There was no benefit to the PO in bringing all these
prosecutions. So, the question the inquiry ought to be asking is why did
they do it?

What was the 'group-think' that got the organisation moving in this
direction, that was disastrous for the SPMs and ultimately for the PO?

How did some of them come to believe the software was infallible, and
why did nobody set them straight?

And so on. Lots of useful questions that might reduce the chances of
this happening again.

>
> Not 'who is to blame'

Finding out that some grubby investigator paid a pittance was highly
motivated by his bonus structure is not big news. It's only useful
insofar as it points to making sure that in future the bonus structure
rewards the right behaviour.



>
> Flop
>
>

[Pamela]

This reminds me of a report I read about a man who was a psychiatric
in-patient that killed someone because his condition wasn't being
properly managed.

His doctor (female) told the investigators she wasn't able to attend
their question session because it was on a Wednesday and she didn't work
Wednesdays!

She never gave evidence despite the significant part she played.

[Roger Hayter]

We know what wrong. Like businesses usually do, the PO set out to take the
most simple and profitable line it could, crushing less powerful people along
the way. The law didn't protect its victims partly because it rarely does
unless they can get funded representation but mainly because for arbitrary
historical reasons (the GPO used to be a state organisation) it had total
control over its own prosecutions and could manipulate the evidence and
fraudulently deny disclosure.

All big businesses will act in this way when they can, and the remedy is an
effective, funded legal system.

As far as I am concerned, the enquiry is entirely to gather evidence to
prosecute the crooks, which rarely happens because the directors will feign
ignorance and blame subordinates; but in this case their conduct was so
shamelessly egregious that it may well be possible.

Obviously, YMMV.

--
Roger Hayter

[billy bookcase]

"Philip Hole" <ne...@theholefamily.org> wrote in message
news:uou7lp$2dbhm$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Read an AAIB report and see how an investigation should be carried
> out.
>
> Facts are the priority aim. Personnel are not named. They are
> identified by their status.
>
> The report is based on 'what went wrong/ how can the problem be
> prevented'.
>
> Not 'who is to blame'
>

Which is surely not unrelated to the fact that most aircraft
accidents are the result of "honest" mistakes and unwitting
oversights by individuals acting honestly and with the best
of intentions.

So that unless there was any malicious intent by any of those
involved then no purpose is served by identifying them by name
when the whole purpose of the report is to identify any
improvement in equipment or procedures which may be required
in the future.

Whereas the PO scandal appears to be the result of "deliberate"
mistakes and wilful acts of "oversight" (sic) by individuals,
deliberately and dishonestly obscuring the truth; in order
to uphold the reputation of the flawed Horizon system, and that
of the Post Office, so as to enhance its prospects for
privatisation.

In which case it will be necessary to apportion "blame" in order
to hold those responsible to account.

As unlike in the case of AAIB reports, one purpose of the enquiry
is to discourage others from believing they can act similarly
in the future, and hope to get away with it.


bb

[Roger Hayter]

That was surely very wise of her. Whether a mentally ill person has been
treated "correctly" is always a matter of opinion unless one can find actual
facts that have been ignored or not sought. Her testimony (and I can bet she
was someone quite junior) might well have enabled some weighty pundit to label
her conduct negligent. She was right to refuse to give evidence unless the
tribunal had powers to force her to do so. It is the habit of such tribunals
to find someone junior (like the post office investigators) to blame and let
the senior people off the hook. She would probably be advised to give a 'no
comment' interview to the police for the same reason.

Unless there is some way to make such testimony unusable by a criminal court
it will often be wise to refuse to give it.


Talking of the whiter-than-white AAIB, some of its evidence was used to
prosecute a pilot who had a fatal (clearly not to him!) accident at an
airshow, so clearly they can't enforce their desire for their investigation
not to be used to prosecute anyone.

--
Roger Hayter

[Jeff]

On 25/01/2024 13:56, GB wrote:

They were not private prosecutions, the Post Office, along with many
other Gov Depts., have a Statutory right to bring prosecutions. The CPS
does have the right to take over these prosecutions, but usually does not.

Jeff

[Martin Brown]

On 25/01/2024 18:52, GB wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 18:01, Philip Hole wrote:
>
>
>> The report is based on 'what went wrong/ how can the problem be
>> prevented'.
>
> Quite. There was no benefit to the PO in bringing all these
> prosecutions. So, the question the inquiry ought to be asking is why did
> they do it?

Once they had started lying they had to continue and keep up appearances.

For my money anyone involved in this fiasco after 2014 on the Post
Office side and the entire team for Project Sparrow (including some
government ministers at the time) should be prosecuted for perverting
the course of justice and have their careers terminated with extreme
prejudice. Never allowed to work in any position of trust ever again.
This whole thing sticks to high heaven.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1859993/post-office-secret-plan-sack-horizon-reviewer-project-sparrow

They knew full well that it was crap and they conspired to cover it up
and continue with the bogus prosecutions. I have no confidence than
anything will ever be done about it though. All the senior players will
have their CYA stories sorted out and very expensive defence lawyers.

I anticipate "I'm not a technical person" to be very high on the list of
rehearsed excuses that their lawyers will put into their mouths.

>
> What was the 'group-think' that got the organisation moving in this
> direction, that was disastrous for the SPMs and ultimately for the PO?

Once you start lying you have to keep up the pretence.

> How did some of them come to believe the software was infallible, and
> why did nobody set them straight?

Because the entire organisation was without any moral or ethical
standards and lying about it had become their cultural norm. It has to
be stamped out and hard! There were a handful of whistleblowers and
external forensic accountants who tried to raise the alarm but they were
stamped on very hard. Perhaps making the legal system so that such
detailed investigations can be shared with the police where criminality
is discovered might go some way to alleviating the situation.

> And so on. Lots of useful questions that might reduce the chances of
> this happening again.

It won't make a blind bit of difference apart from the publicity now
having raised public awareness that such systems are not infallible.

>> Not 'who is to blame'
>
> Finding out that some grubby investigator paid a pittance was highly
> motivated by his bonus structure is not big news.  It's only useful
> insofar as it points to making sure that in future the bonus structure
> rewards the right behaviour.

You always have that problem with bonus structures (bank miss-selling
financial products being the most common example). I always found it odd
that my first company suffered spectacular materials shortages and
production line stalls in January. Then later when I was senior enough
to see all the bonus structures it was obvious to me why.

It is a corollary of "what you measure gets controlled".

--
Martin Brown

[Simon Parker]

On 25/01/2024 13:56, GB wrote:

In as short an answer as possible:

Control and Costs.

Control is obvious and should require no further explanation.

Costs, and I'm sure I said this early on in the discussion but it is
worth repeating because few, if indeed anyone, seems to have picked up
on it, because the rules allow the Post Office to reclaim the costs of
bringing and carrying out the prosecutions from central funds under
section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Note: they can reclaim their costs in full, not at legal aid rates. Why
hand the case off to the police and CPS who are limited by cost
constraints when they could prosecute in-house and reclaim the cost of
doing so? (The costs have to be demonstrably unreasonable for the Post
Office not to have been able to claim them, and even then, they will be
paid only a lesser amount as the court considers 'just and reasonable',
not excluded entirely.) So either they get their full costs, or as
close to them as the court will allow. Win/Win.

In addition to the money the Post Office was extracting from SPMs,
taxpayers were effectively paying the Post Office to bring these
prosecutions! Stop and think about that for a second.

In addition to compensating the SPMs, I believe the Post Office should
repay to central funds all monies used in tainted prosecutions.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

It was argued in a few of the Horizon cases that these were not private
prosecutions given the Post Office's historic position. It wasn't a
matter on which the courts needed to make a determination, but it was
generally accepted by all parties that they were private prosecutions.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

With the BBC having obtained unredacted copies of the documents relating
to "Project Sparrow" senior members of the Post Office, and the
government for that matter, feigning ignorance is unlikely to hold water.

"Project Sparrow" was a sub-committee that took the decision to sack
"Second Sight" following their interim report into Horizon because it
showed there were bugs in the system. The Post Office welcomed and
released with much fanfare the fact that the report stated that Second
Sight had found no systemic flaws in the Horizon system. However,
contextually, "systemic" would mean a flaw affecting every single
terminal in every post office branch so that wasn't the ringing
endorsement the Post Office made it out to be. The report did identify
incidents where defects in Horizon "gave rise to 76 branches being
affected by incorrect balances or transactions which took some time to
identify and correct".

Cue "Project Sparrow" and the decision to dispense with the services of
Second Sight and bring matters in-house. To appease the government,
(the Post Office was under pressure from MPs at the time), the Post
Office set up a mediation scheme to deal with what they described as a
small number of cases of errors.

The documents the BBC now have show that the Post Office planned to make
"token payments" of compensation to SPMs affected totalling around £1m
with no mention whatsoever of the known issues with Horizon to the SPMs
involved or, more importantly, to the prosecutions current at the time,
and historic ones, to whom these facts should have been disclosed.

It would be good to perform a roll-call for Project Sparrow so we can
see who knew what and when. The sub-committee was led by Post Office
chair Alice Perkins and included the then chief executive Paula
Vennells. General counsel Chris Aujard, the Post Office's most senior
internal lawyer, was also a member as was Richard Callard, a senior
civil servant at UK Government Investments, at the time a division of BEIS.

The minutes of Project Sparrow show the members of the sub-committee
closing or speeding up the mediation scheme and planning to pay only
minimal compensation to SPMs. "The cost of all cases in the scheme
going to mediation would be in the region of £1m." the minutes show.
They knew SPMs wouldn't be happy and that there was a "real risk" that
"many applicants will remain dissatisfied at the end of the process."

Given that Paula Vennells has previously spoken on the existence of and
her involvement in Project Sparrow, these unredacted minutes show the
extent of the apparent cover-up within the Post Office and that it seems
to have gone right to the top, and that the government was complicit in
it too.

Feigning ignorance seems to be off the table.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 26/01/2024 10:15, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 18:52, GB wrote:
>> On 25/01/2024 18:01, Philip Hole wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The report is based on 'what went wrong/ how can the problem be
>>> prevented'.
>>
>> Quite. There was no benefit to the PO in bringing all these
>> prosecutions. So, the question the inquiry ought to be asking is why
>> did they do it?
>
> Once they had started lying they had to continue and keep up appearances.

“Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[GB]

On 26/01/2024 11:10, Simon Parker wrote:


> In addition to compensating the SPMs, I believe the Post Office should
> repay to central funds all monies used in tainted prosecutions.

Won't they get that money from central funds, though?





>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
>

[Roger Hayter]

On 26 Jan 2024 at 11:09:10 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I suspect that you may be underestimating the consistency with which public
enquiries exonerate those at the top. The examples are too numerous to
mention, but Chilcott will do to be going on with.


--
Roger Hayter

[Martin Brown]

Some of the guiding minds behind this scandal were not stupid.

The foot soldiers may well have been.

--
Martin Brown

[GB]

I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the
original prosecutions were mainly down to stupidity.

[billy bookcase]

"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:up2sik$3cdts$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the original prosecutions
> were mainly down to stupidity.

Here again is the case of Seema Misra as presented at the start of
the "Private Eye"special report "Justice Lost in The Post
quote:

On 11 November 2010, a pregnant sub-postmaster from Surrey was driven out of Guildford
crown court in a prison van to begin a 15-month sentence for theft.

Seema Misra had been convicted of stealing £74,000 in cash from the Post Office branch
she ran in West Byfleet even though, in the trial judge's summing-up: "There is no direct
evidence of her taking any money. She adamantly denies stealing. There is no CCTV
evidence. There are no fingerprints or marked bank notes or anything of that kind. There
is no evidence of her accumulating cash anywhere else or spending large sums of money or
paying off debts, no evidence about her bank accounts at all. Nothing incriminating was
found when her home was searched." The only evidence was a shortfall of cash compared to
what the Post Office's Horizon computer system said should have been in the branch. "Do
you accept the prosecution case that there is ample evidence before you to establish that
Horizon is a tried and tested system in use at thousands of post offices for several
years, fundamentally robust and reliable?" the judge asked the jury. It did, and
pronounced Seema Misra guilty.

:unquote


https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post


What I'm still struggling to understand is why seemingly nobody thought to ask
at any point, not where the £74,000 had gone: but where it was supposed to have
come from,in the first place. How and why did Seema Misra end up with £74,000
in her Sub Post Office account ? Who paid it, and why ?

Fair enough if she paid 740 OAPs £100 pension every week. But then if she
stole "that" £74,000 the PO wouldn't need Horizon to tell them.

The judges summing up as reported above makes no mention of this; only
there being no evidence of where the money had "gone". And so presumably
it simply wasn't raised,

So where is the £74,000 supposed to have come from ?


bb

[Roger Hayter]

On 27 Jan 2024 at 14:20:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
> news:up2sik$3cdts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the original
>> prosecutions
>> were mainly down to stupidity.
>
>
> Here again is the case of Seema Misra as presented at the start of
> the "Private Eye"special report "Justice Lost in The Post
> quote:
>
> On 11 November 2010, a pregnant sub-postmaster from Surrey was driven out of
> Guildford
> crown court in a prison van to begin a 15-month sentence for theft.
>

> Seema Misra had been convicted of stealing Ģ74,000 in cash from the Post

> at any point, not where the Ģ74,000 had gone: but where it was supposed to have
> come from,in the first place. How and why did Seema Misra end up with Ģ74,000

> in her Sub Post Office account ? Who paid it, and why ?
>

> Fair enough if she paid 740 OAPs Ģ100 pension every week. But then if she
> stole "that" Ģ74,000 the PO wouldn't need Horizon to tell them.

>
> The judges summing up as reported above makes no mention of this; only
> there being no evidence of where the money had "gone". And so presumably
> it simply wasn't raised,
>

> So where is the Ģ74,000 supposed to have come from ?
>
>
> bb

Presumably the turnover of a sub-postoffice is sufficiently high that it could
have come from dribs and drabs of cash received that she should have paid to
the Post Office.

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

On 25/01/2024 09:38 am, The Todal wrote:

> On 24/01/2024 21:53, Pancho wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 15:44, The Todal wrote:

>>> A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office
>>> Investigation Manager, attempting without much success to distance
>>> himself from the scandal.
>

>> AIUI, Mr Grant was a promoted postman. Not a particularly significant
>> actor. I watched the first half, and his answers seemed consistent
>> with the behaviour of a reasonable person. Not perfect, but within the
>> normal bounds of diligence.
>
>> The questioner made a worse impression on me. He reminded me of a
>> YouTube video once posted here entitled “Don't talk to the police”.
>> Anything you say can be twisted.
>
>> One of the problems with legal inquiries is that it is hard to judge
>> the significance of facts. Particularly if you are matching someone's
>> 23-year-old recollection, against facts gleaned from data mining their
>> email history.
>
>> One wonders how much time and money was spent to analyse the 750 pages
>> Grant was asked to read, and to then find inconsistencies in Grant's
>> answers.
>
> I didn't expect quite so much sympathy for an employee of the Post
> Office who was happy to throw sub postmasters under the bus without
> seriously considering that they might be innocent. Only obeying orders.
> Why persecute the poor chap for sloppy decisions he made long ago, when
> he hoped to leave all that behind him?  Nasty barrister, analysing the
> paperwork and looking for the truth!
>
> This reminds me of that excellent show, The Traitors. Suddenly everyone
> thinks that the traitor is actually a faithful.

You surprise me.

On no particular basis of evidence other than your obvious intelligence,
I wouldn't have had you down as a reality television fan.

[JNugent]

You obviously didn't have a Catholic education.

One thing one can be reasonably sure of is that Catholics are NOT taught
that they are absolved from every misdemeanour. Guilt is instilled
permanently (and it's not necessarily a bad thing). It's part of the scheme.

[Martin Brown]

The first handful might have been but anyone worth their salt on
forensic computer analysis would have seen the pattern PDQ.

They knew and they damn well covered it up. Anything done after they had
dismissed the second bunch of forensic accountants (ca 2014) was full
blown conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and should be treated
as such. For my money anything done after they sacked the first expert
who found fault with Horizon right back around 2003 is arguably also
fraud/conspiracy. But so far back it is much harder to prove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-67921974

That was a decade earlier. I reckon both sets of forensic accountants
should be employed to destroy the senior individuals in the Post Office
who were responsible for their dismissal and this travesty of justice.

It might just be a consequence of the classic "pay peanuts" get monkeys
scenario (the execrable sample code also suggests that *was* a problem).

--
Martin Brown

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:l1km09...@mid.individual.net...

> On 27 Jan 2024 at 14:20:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:up2sik$3cdts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the original
>>> prosecutions
>>> were mainly down to stupidity.
>>
>>
>> Here again is the case of Seema Misra as presented at the start of
>> the "Private Eye"special report "Justice Lost in The Post
>> quote:
>>
>> On 11 November 2010, a pregnant sub-postmaster from Surrey was driven out of
>> Guildford
>> crown court in a prison van to begin a 15-month sentence for theft.
>>

>> Seema Misra had been convicted of stealing G74,000 in cash from the Post

>> at any point, not where the G74,000 had gone: but where it was supposed to have
>> come from,in the first place. How and why did Seema Misra end up with G74,000

>> in her Sub Post Office account ? Who paid it, and why ?
>>

>> Fair enough if she paid 740 OAPs G100 pension every week. But then if she
>> stole "that" G74,000 the PO wouldn't need Horizon to tell them.

>>
>> The judges summing up as reported above makes no mention of this; only
>> there being no evidence of where the money had "gone". And so presumably
>> it simply wasn't raised,
>>

>> So where is the G74,000 supposed to have come from ?

>>
>>
>> bb
>
> Presumably the turnover of a sub-postoffice is sufficiently high that it could
> have come from dribs and drabs of cash received that she should have paid to
> the Post Office.

£74,000 amounts to a lot of dribs and drabs though, over what I assume was
a relatively short period.

Same as this chap

quote:

At yet another branch, a shortfall way beyond any possibility of pilfering, amounting to
£1.08m, was described by

software specialists in July 1999 as "due a known software error which has no been
resolved" (sic).

:unquote

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post



That's £1.08m going missing from one office "11 years" before the Seema
Misra case.

Now in retrospect, the Seema Misra case is indeed a standout,definitely
newsworthty. But given the fact she was pregnant it's unlikely the PO
PR dept will have wanted to publicise the case even "pour encourager les
autres". And with the dearth of local Court reporting and stringers
feeding the nationals, its possible it went largely unnoticed at
the time. Although I stand to be corrected

And so whether there was anyone around who necessarily linked
the two cases or rather would necessarily have wanted to link the two
and whether this could ever be proved is another matter.

And in any case. as the Private Eye report * re-iterates over and over
again the reputation of the UK's ramshackle Computer industry** along
with their grandiose promises, and that of the PO itself had to take
precedence.


bb

* Which is well worth reading and was originally published when Boris
Johnson was still Prime Minister.....not that as with a lot of the
stuff "in the back" of "Private Eye" anybody except those directly
involved took a blind bit of notice. "Computers?" . Boring !
"Post Office" ? Boring

* Which for some reason I can't help linking with a car sharing
the most distinctive design elements of the Morris Minor, Austin
Cambridge, Sunbeam Rapier, and Triumph Spitfire.

[Simon Parker]

As I'm sure I've said previously, I don't subscribe to the notion that
action shouldn't be taken just because the result is likely to be the
government moving money from one 'pot' into another 'pot'.

As an example, assume the Post Office whilst still under public
ownership didn't pay its VAT bill when due. Should HMRC say, "Well,
there's no point pursuing this as the government will merely be fining
itself."

Similarly, if an NHS Trust is negligent and a patient dies, should HSE
not issue a fine because any fine will be the government fining itself?

In the instant case, the Post Office originally allocated £1b to the
compensation fund for SPMs. In Q4 of 2023, it downgraded its estimate
of the likely compensation bill to £500m thereby halving its provision.

There's £500m available to repay to central funds.

Additionally, Fujitsu Europe's CEO, Paul Patterson recently admitted
that Fujitsu has a "moral obligation" to contribute to compensation for
SPMs wrongly prosecuted as a result of faulty Horizon system.

Let's say they stump up half of the estimated £500m compensation amount.
That's another £250m available to pay to central funds so we're at
£750m so far.

It should also be borne in mind that the recent legislation passed by
the government only authorises government funds being used to pay
compensation to the SPMs.

Repaying of costs claimed for dodgy private prosecutions is not within
the scope of that legislation meaning the Post Office would have to find
that money from elsewhere. They could start with the executive bonus
scheme.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 28/01/2024 07:45, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 26/01/2024 13:54, GB wrote:
>> On 26/01/2024 11:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In addition to compensating the SPMs, I believe the Post Office
>>> should repay to central funds all monies used in tainted prosecutions.
>>
>> Won't they get that money from central funds, though?
>
> As I'm sure I've said previously, I don't subscribe to the notion that
> action shouldn't be taken just because the result is likely to be the
> government moving money from one 'pot' into another 'pot'.
>
> As an example, assume the Post Office whilst still under public
> ownership didn't pay its VAT bill when due.  Should HMRC say, "Well,
> there's no point pursuing this as the government will merely be fining
> itself."
>
> Similarly, if an NHS Trust is negligent and a patient dies, should HSE
> not issue a fine because any fine will be the government fining itself?
>
> In the instant case, the Post Office originally allocated £1b to the
> compensation fund for SPMs.  In Q4 of 2023, it downgraded its estimate
> of the likely compensation bill to £500m thereby halving its provision.
>
> There's £500m available to repay to central funds.

Only if they had the £1000m available as cash in the first place,
surely? I suspect what you are talking about is simply £500m less
needed from central funds.

Of course, they should pay any existing imposts, such as VAT, but
inventing a new impost purely as an accounting exercise? Don't waste
time on it.

[Roger Hayter]

On 28 Jan 2024 at 11:25:02 GMT, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/01/2024 07:45, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 26/01/2024 13:54, GB wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2024 11:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In addition to compensating the SPMs, I believe the Post Office
>>>> should repay to central funds all monies used in tainted prosecutions.
>>>
>>> Won't they get that money from central funds, though?
>>
>> As I'm sure I've said previously, I don't subscribe to the notion that
>> action shouldn't be taken just because the result is likely to be the
>> government moving money from one 'pot' into another 'pot'.
>>
>> As an example, assume the Post Office whilst still under public
>> ownership didn't pay its VAT bill when due. Should HMRC say, "Well,
>> there's no point pursuing this as the government will merely be fining
>> itself."
>>
>> Similarly, if an NHS Trust is negligent and a patient dies, should HSE
>> not issue a fine because any fine will be the government fining itself?
>>
>> In the instant case, the Post Office originally allocated £1b to the
>> compensation fund for SPMs. In Q4 of 2023, it downgraded its estimate
>> of the likely compensation bill to £500m thereby halving its provision.
>>
>> There's £500m available to repay to central funds.
>
> Only if they had the £1000m available as cash in the first place,
> surely? I suspect what you are talking about is simply £500m less
> needed from central funds.
>
>>

snip

Unlike some nationalised industries they don't receive income from central
funds (I don't know about capital - when they want a new computer system for
instance) but actually make an operating profit. In order to attract the best
cronies for director jobs, and enable the best kick-backs to appointing
politicians, they pay the typical private sector obscene bonuses to top
officials and directors, If they have to raid the odd hundred million of
directors' bonuses to pay a fine I don't see how the Treasury will be paying
it.



--
Roger Hayter

[Martin Brown]

On 28/01/2024 07:45, Simon Parker wrote:

> On 26/01/2024 13:54, GB wrote:
>> On 26/01/2024 11:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In addition to compensating the SPMs, I believe the Post Office
>>> should repay to central funds all monies used in tainted prosecutions.
>>
>> Won't they get that money from central funds, though?
>
> As I'm sure I've said previously, I don't subscribe to the notion that
> action shouldn't be taken just because the result is likely to be the
> government moving money from one 'pot' into another 'pot'.
>
> As an example, assume the Post Office whilst still under public
> ownership didn't pay its VAT bill when due.  Should HMRC say, "Well,
> there's no point pursuing this as the government will merely be fining
> itself."

ISTR there already is something along those lines as happened when the
department for fire safety burned down spectacularly and they claimed
Crown immunity. FBU is quite exercised about it or rather was in 2004:

https://www.fbu.org.uk/policies/2004/crown-immunity

Likewise when they injured a bunch of prison warders with a badly
thought out training exercise (or the military but they have a bit more
of an excuse since live fire exercises can never be made completely safe).

https://www.frederickchambers.co.uk/post/crown-immunity-a-blot-on-the-landscape-of-the-english-legal-system

> Repaying of costs claimed for dodgy private prosecutions is not within
> the scope of that legislation meaning the Post Office would have to find
> that money from elsewhere.  They could start with the executive bonus
> scheme.

Given that the PO are already on the verge of bankruptcy that doesn't
seem very likely to happen (or the cost to send a letter will become
even more extortionate than it already is). They are also now leaderless
since Badenough has decided to defenestrate the present chairman.

Incidentally does he have a strong case for unfair dismissal?
(it strikes me that due process was not followed here)

--
Martin Brown

[Fredxx]

I did attend Sunday school and the like. I saw many obnoxious christians
who were certainly able to separate guilt and conscience, and in the
mean time impose their beliefs on others.

Perhaps your creed doesn't allow for your sins to be forgiven, aka
forgotten? It's amazing how far a little repentance goes.

[JNugent]

It's a shame that constructive dismissal cases are heard by Tribunals.

I'm sure that many of us find it interesting to see him try it on with a
jury.

[billy bookcase]

"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:uotoaj$2ak4p$1...@dont-email.me...

>>
> One advantage of being a christian is you're absolved for everything bad you do,
> ensuring you don't have a conscience. Aren't christian morals great.

Not quite.

In order to get absolved you have to do something; either go to confession
as a Catholic or pray for forgiveness to God.

However in order to know whether its necessary to do something so as to
get absolved, you'd first need a conscience to tell you you'd done something
wrong in the first place

As Paula Vennells would doubtless explain, having gone home and had
a really good pray every night.


bb

[The Todal]

Christians and sexual abuse - with power comes great opportunities.
Begging for forgiveness is usually a trump card.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66449988

Robert Corfield, ex-minister of secretive sect, admits to child sex abuse

Robert Corfield, a man who abused a boy in Canada in a secretive
Christian church in the 1980s, has spoken publicly about what happened
for the first time.

He was confronted by the BBC as part of a wider look into claims of
child sexual abuse spanning decades within the church, known as The
Truth. When confronted about the child abuse allegations by the BBC, Mr
Corfield admitted that they had taken place for about six years in the
1980s.

"I have to acknowledge that's true," he said. Mr Corfield was a minister
- known within the sect as a "worker" - in Saskatchewan, Canada, at the
time of the abuse.

This is the first time he has publicly admitted to child abuse, though
he has previously been confronted by church members and wrote two
private letters to Mr Havet in 2004 and 2005 which asked for forgiveness
and said he was seeing a therapist. In one letter, Mr Corfield said he
was "making a list of victims".

Meanwhile, Ms Autrey says Steve Rohs stayed at her family home in Tulare
County, California, for two months in 1982 - when she was turning 14 -
and molested her daily. In a letter dated 11 May 1986, written by Mr
Rohs and seen by the BBC, he admits to the overseer that he and the
teenager "did kiss and touch each other intimately" and that he had
"begged for forgiveness" ever since.

[Martin Brown]

Why do you say that?

He played no part in the shenanigans that led to this fiasco and the
Post Office have been cooperating with the investigation since he took
over. Previous CEO's lied and blocked it with heavyweight legal threats.

Admittedly only for small values of cooperating - the PO game plan now
seems to be release such huge volumes of largely irrelevant project
documentation that finding the needle in a haystack needed to prove
things along a timeline is almost impossible for investigators.

I grant you that he does make a convenient scape goat for Badenough to
sacrifice on the altar of public opinion to be seen to "do something".

The government is as guilty as the Post Office of covering this up and
has been since they fired the forensic accountants in 2014-5 and then
allowed the PO to go back to being judge, jury and executioner.

--
Martin Brown

[Max Demian]

On 28/01/2024 23:53, The Todal wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 15:24, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 27/01/2024 15:35, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 25/01/2024 01:39 pm, Fredxx wrote:

>>>> One advantage of being a christian is you're absolved for everything
>>>> bad you do, ensuring you don't have a conscience. Aren't christian
>>>> morals great.
>>>
>>> You obviously didn't have a Catholic education.
>>>
>>> One thing one can be reasonably sure of is that Catholics are NOT
>>> taught that they are absolved from every misdemeanour. Guilt is
>>> instilled permanently (and it's not necessarily a bad thing). It's
>>> part of the scheme.
>>
>> I did attend Sunday school and the like. I saw many obnoxious
>> christians who  were certainly able to separate guilt and conscience,
>> and in the mean time impose their beliefs on others.
>>
>> Perhaps your creed doesn't allow for your sins to be forgiven, aka
>> forgotten? It's amazing how far a little repentance goes.

> Christians and sexual abuse - with power comes great opportunities.
> Begging for forgiveness is usually a trump card.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66449988
>
> Robert Corfield, ex-minister of secretive sect, admits to child sex abuse

Well obviously better than asking for permission first...

--
Max Demian

[Owen Rees]

Recent news reports suggest that Horizon is still making financial mistakes
that sub-postmasters are expected to cover and the post office is in
denial.

[GB]

On 27/01/2024 13:48, Martin Brown wrote:

>> I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the
>> original prosecutions were mainly down to stupidity.
>
> The first handful might have been but anyone worth their salt on
> forensic computer analysis would have seen the pattern PDQ.
>

You have seen the calibre of investigators the PO employed. They hadn't
a clue about computer forensics.

[Martin Brown]

I couldn't be sure from the evidence that the senior one gave whether he
was actually very smart pretending to be dumb on legal advice or just
thick. I suspect he (and they) may have been chosen more for his ability
to intimidate innocent people into "confessing" than anything else.

I expect "I am not a technical person" to feature widely in the defence
statements of the various guiding minds behind this PO conspiracy.

--
Martin Brown

[GB]

On 30/01/2024 11:06, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 21:10, GB wrote:
>> On 27/01/2024 13:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the
>>>> original prosecutions were mainly down to stupidity.
>>>
>>> The first handful might have been but anyone worth their salt on
>>> forensic computer analysis would have seen the pattern PDQ.
>>>
>>
>> You have seen the calibre of investigators the PO employed. They
>> hadn't a clue about computer forensics.
>
> I couldn't be sure from the evidence that the senior one gave whether he
> was actually very smart pretending to be dumb on legal advice or just
> thick. I suspect he (and they) may have been chosen more for his ability
> to intimidate innocent people into "confessing" than anything else.

I imagine that they were actually chosen for their willingness to work
for the fairly low wages the Post Office pays.

[JNugent]

On 29/01/2024 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 13:27, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/01/2024 01:21 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>> Given that the PO are already on the verge of bankruptcy that doesn't
>>> seem very likely to happen (or the cost to send a letter will become
>>> even more extortionate than it already is). They are also now
>>> leaderless since Badenough has decided to defenestrate the present
>>> chairman.
>>>
>>> Incidentally does he have a strong case for unfair dismissal?
>>> (it strikes me that due process was not followed here)
>>
>> It's a shame that constructive dismissal cases are heard by Tribunals.
>>
>> I'm sure that many of us find it interesting to see him try it on with
>> a jury.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> He played no part in the shenanigans that led to this fiasco and the
> Post Office have been cooperating with the investigation since he took
> over. Previous CEO's lied and blocked it with heavyweight legal threats.

There are certain implications arising out of the circumstances in which
he resigned. Your last sentence above sort of suggests some of them.

But perhaps a jury might take a more realistic view of the case than
would a jaded, seen-it-all-before Tribunal?

> Admittedly only for small values of cooperating - the PO game plan now
> seems to be release such huge volumes of largely irrelevant project
> documentation that finding the needle in a haystack needed to prove
> things along a timeline is almost impossible for investigators.
>

> I grant you that he does make a convenient scape goat for Badenoch [FIFY]

> to sacrifice on the altar of public opinion to be seen to "do something".
>
> The government is as guilty as the Post Office of covering this up and
> has been since they fired the forensic accountants in 2014-5 and then
> allowed the PO to go back to being judge, jury and executioner.

No doubt, if true, that will be mentioned.

[Simon Parker]

On 25/01/2024 13:44, GB wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 16:37, GB wrote:

>>> Do you have a cite for that, please?
>>
>> This is a Statutory Inquiry so the The Inquiries Act 2005 [1] applies.
>>
>> In the instant case, Section 21 thereof [2].
>>
>> It should be noted that Mr Grant's appearance before the Inquiry was
>> as the result of a Section 21 notice served on him after he had
>> initially refused to provide a witness statement and appear before the
>> inquiry.
>
> I was asking for a citation for Todal's point that Mr Grant had a duty
> to do loads of homework before the hearing, and if he didn't he could
> 'expect a nasty surprise'.

Were I the recipient of a Section 21 notice demanding I submit a Witness
Statement and appear in person before the Inquiry, I would consider it
my moral duty to ensure that the evidence I gave was as complete and
accurate as it could be.

If that necessitated doing "loads of homework before the hearing", then
I would consider that a worthwhile price to pay.

YMMV.

Mr. Grant's mileage certainly did vary. :-)


> There's nothing in S21 about that. So, is there some other statute or
> case law Todal was relying on?

The Todal would have to say the legislation, statute or case law he had
in mind as, beyond s.21, I am not aware of any.


> I take it that in fact Mr Grant didn't get any nasty surprises?

I think Mr. Grant should consider himself fortunate that an Inquiry
chairman has a legal obligation to consider the cost implication of any
decision he makes. Were that not the case, the Chair could have
insisted that Mr. Grant submit a more substantive Witness Statement and
refresh his mind with the facts of the matter so that he could do
considerably better than answering the majority of questions, and
certainly those that mattered with, "I can't remember." The Chair
could, for example, have adjourned for several hours, to afford Mr Grant
the opportunity to read the necessary paperwork prior to continuing the
Inquiry.


> If there's no compulsion to read many, many pages of evidence before the
> hearing, Mr Grant is perfectly right if he simply answered questions
> with "Can't remember" (assuming that to be true), and his witness
> statement could effectively also be "Can't remember".

There's legal obligations, moral obligations and "doing the right thing".

IMO, Mr. Grant sailed very close to the wind, especially considering his
appearance was as a result of section 21 notice.


>> I found it noteworthy that his prepared opening statement, which he
>> insisted on reading verbatim, about how busy he was and why he should
>> not have to co-operate with the inquiry was longer than his witness
>> statement.
>
> Perhaps he really thought he couldn't add much to the process?

Respectfully, that is not his decision to make. As a witness of fact,
his role is to reveal the facts as he knows them to the best of his
knowledge. "I can't remember" really doesn't "add much to the process".

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 28/01/2024 11:25, GB wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 07:45, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 26/01/2024 13:54, GB wrote:

>>> Won't they get that money from central funds, though?
>>
>> As I'm sure I've said previously, I don't subscribe to the notion that
>> action shouldn't be taken just because the result is likely to be the
>> government moving money from one 'pot' into another 'pot'.
>>
>> As an example, assume the Post Office whilst still under public
>> ownership didn't pay its VAT bill when due.  Should HMRC say, "Well,
>> there's no point pursuing this as the government will merely be fining
>> itself."
>>
>> Similarly, if an NHS Trust is negligent and a patient dies, should HSE
>> not issue a fine because any fine will be the government fining itself?
>>
>> In the instant case, the Post Office originally allocated £1b to the
>> compensation fund for SPMs.  In Q4 of 2023, it downgraded its estimate
>> of the likely compensation bill to £500m thereby halving its provision.
>>
>> There's £500m available to repay to central funds.
>
> Only if they had the £1000m available as cash in the first place,
> surely?  I suspect what you are talking about is simply £500m less
> needed from central funds.

If they don't have the physical cash available and they need money from
central funds then TPTB need to ensure that the £500m is recorded on the
balance sheet as a £500m loan and stays there unless and until it is
repaid which will impact the bonuses of senior staff for some
considerable time.

> Of course, they should pay any existing imposts, such as VAT, but
> inventing a new impost purely as an accounting exercise? Don't waste
> time on it.

I disagree. Senior executives were rewarded with payments under both
the "Short-Term Incentive Plan" (STIP) and "Long-Term Incentive Plan"
(LTIP) because one bonus simply wasn't enough, so they had two.

But, there's some important wording in the Post Office's bonus
provisions. I give you the so-called clawback clause, which I reproduce
verbatim from the Post Office's accounts produced for the entirety of
Paula Vennells' tenure and which applied to all senior executives:

"Executive directors have clawback clauses in their contracts, as well
as the STIP and LTIP rules, which provide for the return of any
overpayments in the event of misstatement of the accounts, error or
gross misconduct on the part of an executive. These provisions are in
line with market best practice.".

And I wouldn't just be looking at Vennells' bonus, although that would
be an excellent place to start given that she was CEO between 2010 and
2019, but I'd look at the following too, in no particular order, Tim
Parker (Chairman between 2015 and 2022), Alisdair Cameron (CFO since
2015) and Ken McCall, (senior non-executive from 2016 until early 2022).

Until 2013, when a reorganisation took place, Post Office was a part of
Royal Mail so I don't believe the list above is all-encompassing.

So I'd be looking at those involved before and after the split too like,
Adam Crozier (CEO of Royal Mail between 2003 and 2010), Alan
Cook (MD of the Post Office between 2006 and 2010), Moya Greene (CEO of
Royal Mail between 2010 and 2018 (which, as noted above, included the
Post Office until 2013)), Allan Leighton (chairman of Royal Mail between
2001 and 2009), Donald Brydon (chairman of Royal Mail between 2009 and
2015), and Alice Perkins (chair of Post Office between 2011 and 2015).

In fact, Companies House records show a total of more than 80 directors
between 2000 and 2023. I'd go after the lot of them.

It might not seem much, in the grand scheme of raising £500m but as
Tesco are wont to remind us, "Every little helps".

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 28/01/2024 13:21, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 07:45, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 26/01/2024 13:54, GB wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2024 11:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In addition to compensating the SPMs, I believe the Post Office
>>>> should repay to central funds all monies used in tainted prosecutions.
>>>
>>> Won't they get that money from central funds, though?
>>
>> As I'm sure I've said previously, I don't subscribe to the notion that
>> action shouldn't be taken just because the result is likely to be the
>> government moving money from one 'pot' into another 'pot'.
>>
>> As an example, assume the Post Office whilst still under public
>> ownership didn't pay its VAT bill when due.  Should HMRC say, "Well,
>> there's no point pursuing this as the government will merely be fining
>> itself."
>
> ISTR there already is something along those lines as happened when the
> department for fire safety burned down spectacularly and they claimed
> Crown immunity. FBU is quite exercised about it or rather was in 2004:
>
> https://www.fbu.org.uk/policies/2004/crown-immunity
>
> Likewise when they injured a bunch of prison warders with a badly
> thought out training exercise (or the military but they have a bit more
> of an excuse since live fire exercises can never be made completely safe).
>
> https://www.frederickchambers.co.uk/post/crown-immunity-a-blot-on-the-landscape-of-the-english-legal-system

As I've said elsewhere, forcing any money advanced from central funds to
be treated as a loan with this reflected into the formula used to
calculate executive bonuses until it is repaid is likely to concentrate
the minds of those affected.

>> Repaying of costs claimed for dodgy private prosecutions is not within
>> the scope of that legislation meaning the Post Office would have to
>> find that money from elsewhere.  They could start with the executive
>> bonus scheme.
>
> Given that the PO are already on the verge of bankruptcy that doesn't
> seem very likely to happen (or the cost to send a letter will become
> even more extortionate than it already is). They are also now leaderless
> since Badenough has decided to defenestrate the present chairman.

If the Post Office goes bankrupt, it goes bankrupt and provides an
excellent opportunity to reset the table. Basic pay of £600K for the
CEO may be an excellent starting point to look for savings. Next, I'd
look at the FD on £500K. And I'd abolish both the STIP and LTIP until
it was back in profitability. But that's just me. YMMV.

> Incidentally does he have a strong case for unfair dismissal?
> (it strikes me that due process was not followed here)

I know not the details of his contract, but were he acting as a director
of the company, as would seem likely, the shareholders, (or in this case
the shareholder, singular), is entitled to remove him, or indeed any
other director by way of an ordinary resolution. I would suggest that
failing to act in line with section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 would
be more than sufficient grounds to justify the action. (For one thing
he could, and IMO should, have initiated bonus clawback provisions
against every executive in place back to the point at which Horizon
prosecutions were becoming questionable.)

Regards

S.P.

[Max Demian]

On 04/02/2024 08:51, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 13:44, GB wrote:
>> On 25/01/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2024 16:37, GB wrote:
>
>>>> Do you have a cite for that, please?
>>>
>>> This is a Statutory Inquiry so the The Inquiries Act 2005 [1] applies.
>>>
>>> In the instant case, Section 21 thereof [2].
>>>
>>> It should be noted that Mr Grant's appearance before the Inquiry was
>>> as the result of a Section 21 notice served on him after he had
>>> initially refused to provide a witness statement and appear before
>>> the inquiry.
>>
>> I was asking for a citation for Todal's point that Mr Grant had a duty
>> to do loads of homework before the hearing, and if he didn't he could
>> 'expect a nasty surprise'.
>
> Were I the recipient of a Section 21 notice demanding I submit a Witness
> Statement and appear in person before the Inquiry, I would consider it
> my moral duty to ensure that the evidence I gave was as complete and
> accurate as it could be.
>
> If that necessitated doing "loads of homework before the hearing", then
> I would consider that a worthwhile price to pay.

Are you allowed to take written notes into the witness box to refer to?


--
Max Demian

[GB]

On 04/02/2024 10:43, Max Demian wrote:

> Are you allowed to take written notes into the witness box to refer to?
>

I've only been in the position of an expert witness, and in that case
the answer is yes. But, you may be asked to show the notes to the
court/counsel, so be careful what you put in the folder.

[GB]

On 04/02/2024 08:51, Simon Parker wrote:

> On 25/01/2024 13:44, GB wrote:
>> On 25/01/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2024 16:37, GB wrote:
>
>>>> Do you have a cite for that, please?
>>>
>>> This is a Statutory Inquiry so the The Inquiries Act 2005 [1] applies.
>>>
>>> In the instant case, Section 21 thereof [2].
>>>
>>> It should be noted that Mr Grant's appearance before the Inquiry was
>>> as the result of a Section 21 notice served on him after he had
>>> initially refused to provide a witness statement and appear before
>>> the inquiry.
>>
>> I was asking for a citation for Todal's point that Mr Grant had a duty
>> to do loads of homework before the hearing, and if he didn't he could
>> 'expect a nasty surprise'.
>
> Were I the recipient of a Section 21 notice demanding I submit a Witness
> Statement and appear in person before the Inquiry, I would consider it
> my moral duty to ensure that the evidence I gave was as complete and
> accurate as it could be.
>
> If that necessitated doing "loads of homework before the hearing", then
> I would consider that a worthwhile price to pay.

The counter-argument is:

In most cases, the documents speak for themselves. So, it is necessary
to ask what a witness can add? Well, he may remember things that are not
in the documents. For that purpose, there's no need for him to read the
documents.

It may be necessary to ask Mr Grant to elucidate some point or other in
the documents. Maybe, something is ambiguous or unclear. If there are
thousands of pages of documents, there's no point in an ordinary mortal
reading them in advance. Maybe, there is for someone with a prodigious
memory, but not an ordinary person.

For that purpose, a sensible course would be for the Inquiry to list out
the questions Mr Grant needs to answer, supply him with the relevant
documents plus their context, and ask for his written answers. He can
then be examined in court on those answers.

If, instead, Mr Grant was sent say 10 ring binders of documents and told
to turn up and answer questions out of the blue, my sympathy is entirely
with Mr Grant.

>
> YMMV.
>
> Mr. Grant's mileage certainly did vary. :-)

You'll gather that I'm with Mr G on the daftness of asking random
questions about matters decades in the past without prior notice of the
questions.

>
>
>> There's nothing in S21 about that. So, is there some other statute or
>> case law Todal was relying on?
>
> The Todal would have to say the legislation, statute or case law he had
> in mind as, beyond s.21, I am not aware of any.
>
>
>> I take it that in fact Mr Grant didn't get any nasty surprises?
>
> I think Mr. Grant should consider himself fortunate that an Inquiry
> chairman has a legal obligation to consider the cost implication of any
> decision he makes.  Were that not the case, the Chair could have
> insisted that Mr. Grant submit a more substantive Witness Statement and
> refresh his mind with the facts of the matter so that he could do
> considerably better than answering the majority of questions, and
> certainly those that mattered with, "I can't remember."  The Chair
> could, for example, have adjourned for several hours, to afford Mr Grant
> the opportunity to read the necessary paperwork prior to continuing the
> Inquiry.

My reading speed for these sorts of documents is pretty slow - maybe 30
pages an hour, and I need breaks. So, when you said "adjourned for
several hours" that must have been a typo. Surely, you meant adjourned
for several weeks/months?

>
>
>> If there's no compulsion to read many, many pages of evidence before
>> the hearing, Mr Grant is perfectly right if he simply answered
>> questions with "Can't remember" (assuming that to be true), and his
>> witness statement could effectively also be "Can't remember".
>
> There's legal obligations, moral obligations and "doing the right thing".
>
> IMO, Mr. Grant sailed very close to the wind, especially considering his
> appearance was as a result of section 21 notice.
>
>
>>> I found it noteworthy that his prepared opening statement, which he
>>> insisted on reading verbatim, about how busy he was and why he should
>>> not have to co-operate with the inquiry was longer than his witness
>>> statement.
>>
>> Perhaps he really thought he couldn't add much to the process?
>
> Respectfully, that is not his decision to make.  As a witness of fact,
> his role is to reveal the facts as he knows them to the best of his
> knowledge.

Forgive me cavilling, but that's precisely what Mr G did!

> "I can't remember" really doesn't "add much to the process".

Indeed, but my point is that maybe the process is at fault, not Mr G?



>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
>

[GB]

On 04/02/2024 08:54, Simon Parker wrote:

> In fact, Companies House records show a total of more than 80 directors
> between 2000 and 2023.  I'd go after the lot of them.
>

There may be some sort of longstop date on clawing back a bonus paid 20
years ago. Obviously, neither of us has seen the bonus rules. I don't
know whether the 6 year rule applies?

[billy bookcase]

"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:upoj4l$3oi9u$2...@dont-email.me...

Not immediately relevant to that question but maybe of interest neverthless

>From the current "Private Eye" no 1616; "Post Production" tucked away
on p.19 . Paraphrased.

In June 2015 BBC Panorama had an exposé ready to air; featuring a Fujitsu
whistleblower. The PO had already had a month to answer his allegations.

Somehow persistent lobbying by the PO managed to get the BBC to delay
transmission.

The Panorama editor who'd been successfully "lobbied" then went on leave
for six weeks.

The programme was eventually transmitted in August with Parliament safely
in recess. So no awkward questions in Parliament

The chair of the PO until July 2015 was one Alice Perkins.

Who had also chaired "Project Sparrow" which had decided to ditch
"Second Sight" and take the "investigations" in house.

Who just so happened to have also been a member of the BBC Board,
at the time the decision was made.

So that would have been something else she wouldn't have known
anything about either. Natch


bb

[billy bookcase]

"billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote in message news:upor0f$3qb2i$1...@dont-email.me...

While John Sweeney who actually worked on the programme, spells out the
details

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/01/29/the-bbc-vs-the-post-office-the-undeclared-conflict-of-interest-as-panorama-investigated-the-horizon-scandal/


bb

>

[Pancho]

On 04/02/2024 08:51, Simon Parker wrote:

> Were I the recipient of a Section 21 notice demanding I submit a Witness
> Statement and appear in person before the Inquiry, I would consider it
> my moral duty to ensure that the evidence I gave was as complete and
> accurate as it could be.
>
> If that necessitated doing "loads of homework before the hearing", then
> I would consider that a worthwhile price to pay.
>
> YMMV.
>

> Mr. Grant's mileage certainly did vary. 🙂


I think many of us do not share your confidence in the noble purpose of
inquiries such as this. Without the belief that the inquiry is a good
thing, the moral obligation to cooperate disappears.

[Pancho]

I think that is very telling. In comparison, Raymond Grant is a red
herring, a distraction.

FWIW, I'm not convinced about the significance of the audit editing
stuff, it might be true, but I think it isn't necessary to make the case
against POL.

[Pamela]

On 22:19 4 Feb 2024, Pancho said:
> On 04/02/2024 20:52, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote in message
>> news:upor0f$3qb2i$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:upoj4l$3oi9u$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 04/02/2024 08:54, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, Companies House records show a total of more than 80
>>>>> directors between 2000 and 2023. I'd go after the lot of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There may be some sort of longstop date on clawing back a bonus
>>>> paid 20 years ago. Obviously, neither of us has seen the bonus
>>>> rules. I don't know whether the 6 year rule applies?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not immediately relevant to that question but maybe of interest
>>> neverthless
>>>
>>> >From the current "Private Eye" no 1616; "Post Production" tucked
>>> >away on p.19 . Paraphrased.
>>>

>>> In June 2015 BBC Panorama had an expose ready to air; featuring a

That's a very interesting article. Although I wonder if the author, John
Sweeney, might be making a bit too much out of the "change in
preposition" that he draws attention to. This is what he writes:

He told me there were "a lot of errors, a lot glitches, coming
through." When I clarified, whether there were errors in the system,
he replied: "There were errors with the system." Note the change of
preposition.

https://shorturl.at/BDVW5

"In" does not necessarily mean "within" or "inside".

"With" does not necessarily mean outside the system.

[Simon Parker]

On 04/02/2024 10:43, Max Demian wrote:

I invite you to watch the video of Mr Grant giving evidence to the
Inquiry available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dDaBGi2S5Y

He has a printed copy of his "Opening Statement" with him as well as a
printed copy of his Witness Statement and several folders in front of him.

The Inquiry is using electronic bundles so all documents are displayed
on screens multiple screens for all to see whenever they are referenced.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 04/02/2024 17:50, GB wrote:
> On 04/02/2024 08:51, Simon Parker wrote:

>>> I was asking for a citation for Todal's point that Mr Grant had a
>>> duty to do loads of homework before the hearing, and if he didn't he
>>> could 'expect a nasty surprise'.
>>
>> Were I the recipient of a Section 21 notice demanding I submit a
>> Witness Statement and appear in person before the Inquiry, I would
>> consider it my moral duty to ensure that the evidence I gave was as
>> complete and accurate as it could be.
>>
>> If that necessitated doing "loads of homework before the hearing",
>> then I would consider that a worthwhile price to pay.
>
> The counter-argument is:
>
> In most cases, the documents speak for themselves. So, it is necessary
> to ask what a witness can add? Well, he may remember things that are not
> in the documents. For that purpose, there's no need for him to read the
> documents.

Or as is more likely, questions need to be asked that aren't covered in
the document. For example, "Upon being appointed as an Investigator by
Post Office Limited, what formal training did you receive to prepare you
for the role?"

> It may be necessary to ask Mr Grant to elucidate some point or other in
> the documents. Maybe, something is ambiguous or unclear. If there are
> thousands of pages of documents, there's no point in an ordinary mortal
> reading them in advance. Maybe, there is for someone with a prodigious
> memory, but not an ordinary person.

"What formal training in investigation did you receive following your
appointment as an investigator?" does not require reading thousands of
pages of documents.

For example, were the Post Office to claim that their investigators
underwent a vigorous and comprehensive training programme prior to being
deployed in the field to carry out investigations then it would be
possible to ask a senior investigator about this training programme.

Similarly, it would be possible to ask questions about how
investigations were handled, the objective, techniques used, data
acquired, evidential levels, etc.

> For that purpose, a sensible course would be for the Inquiry to list out
> the questions Mr Grant needs to answer, supply him with the relevant
> documents plus their context, and ask for his written answers. He can
> then be examined in court on those answers.
>
> If, instead, Mr Grant was sent say 10 ring binders of documents and told
> to turn up and answer questions out of the blue, my sympathy is entirely
> with Mr Grant.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

>> YMMV.
>>
>> Mr. Grant's mileage certainly did vary. :-)
>
> You'll gather that I'm with Mr G on the daftness of asking random
> questions about matters decades in the past without prior notice of the
> questions.

I had somewhat come to that conclusion, yes. :-)

[...]

>>> I take it that in fact Mr Grant didn't get any nasty surprises?
>>
>> I think Mr. Grant should consider himself fortunate that an Inquiry
>> chairman has a legal obligation to consider the cost implication of
>> any decision he makes.  Were that not the case, the Chair could have
>> insisted that Mr. Grant submit a more substantive Witness Statement
>> and refresh his mind with the facts of the matter so that he could do
>> considerably better than answering the majority of questions, and
>> certainly those that mattered with, "I can't remember."  The Chair
>> could, for example, have adjourned for several hours, to afford Mr
>> Grant the opportunity to read the necessary paperwork prior to
>> continuing the Inquiry.
>
> My reading speed for these sorts of documents is pretty slow - maybe 30
> pages an hour, and I need breaks. So, when you said "adjourned for
> several hours" that must have been a typo. Surely, you meant adjourned
> for several weeks/months?

If one is reading the material for the first time and needs to meditate
upon it to assimilate it, it will take longer. But if one is reading
material merely to be reminded of its contents, having read it several
times in the past, using on a regular basis as part of one's job, then
the process should be quicker.

But I accept that some people read very slowly. My wife drives me
insane with how slow she reads. :-)


[...]

>>>> I found it noteworthy that his prepared opening statement, which he
>>>> insisted on reading verbatim, about how busy he was and why he
>>>> should not have to co-operate with the inquiry was longer than his
>>>> witness statement.
>>>
>>> Perhaps he really thought he couldn't add much to the process?
>>
>> Respectfully, that is not his decision to make.  As a witness of fact,
>> his role is to reveal the facts as he knows them to the best of his
>> knowledge.
>
> Forgive me cavilling, but that's precisely what Mr G did!

As I've said previously, I believe he skated very close to the line and
got away with it. Other witnesses may not be so fortunate.

>> "I can't remember" really doesn't "add much to the process".
>
> Indeed, but my point is that maybe the process is at fault, not Mr G?

The Inquiry can only work with the framework of the existing
legislation. If it was thought this framework was inadequate, then
there should be calls to change it.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

But there might not have been a decade ago. Or two decades ago, when
this should have been dealt with.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 07/02/2024 13:12, Simon Parker wrote:

>> The counter-argument is:
>>
>> In most cases, the documents speak for themselves. So, it is necessary
>> to ask what a witness can add? Well, he may remember things that are
>> not in the documents. For that purpose, there's no need for him to
>> read the documents.
>
> Or as is more likely, questions need to be asked that aren't covered in
> the document.  For example, "Upon being appointed as an Investigator by
> Post Office Limited, what formal training did you receive to prepare you
> for the role?"

That's a reasonable question, but it may be answerable with some
accuracy by reference to a personnel record. I'd expect a record of
training to be kept. Asking a witness on the stand, without warning,
seems a ludicrous way to elicit that information. It would be slightly
better to provide advance warning of the question, so the witness can
gather his thoughts, but it's a fundamentally bad way of going about it.

>
>
>> It may be necessary to ask Mr Grant to elucidate some point or other
>> in the documents. Maybe, something is ambiguous or unclear. If there
>> are thousands of pages of documents, there's no point in an ordinary
>> mortal reading them in advance. Maybe, there is for someone with a
>> prodigious memory, but not an ordinary person.
>
> "What formal training in investigation did you receive following your
> appointment as an investigator?" does not require reading thousands of
> pages of documents.

It shouldn't only involve reading the record in the personnel file. But,
why ask the witness, rather than reading the record?

Supposing the personnel record is not available, how much can Mr G add
from memory? Apparently, not very much.

>
> For example, were the Post Office to claim that their investigators
> underwent a vigorous and comprehensive training programme prior to being
> deployed in the field to carry out investigations then it would be
> possible to ask a senior investigator about this training programme.
>
> Similarly, it would be possible to ask questions about how
> investigations were handled, the objective, techniques used, data
> acquired, evidential levels, etc.

If Mr Grant cannot recall the information, what would you have him do?

Todal would have had Mr G read a load of documents, make notes, and then
tell the Inquiry what his notes say, but surely the Inquiry is perfectly
capable of reading the documents and making their own notes?

>
>> For that purpose, a sensible course would be for the Inquiry to list
>> out the questions Mr Grant needs to answer, supply him with the
>> relevant documents plus their context, and ask for his written
>> answers. He can then be examined in court on those answers.
>>
>> If, instead, Mr Grant was sent say 10 ring binders of documents and
>> told to turn up and answer questions out of the blue, my sympathy is
>> entirely with Mr Grant.
>
> "With great power comes great responsibility."

And, this homily will somehow or other improve his memory?

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:08:05 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/02/2024 13:12, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> "What formal training in investigation did you receive following your
>> appointment as an investigator?" does not require reading thousands of
>> pages of documents.
>
>It shouldn't only involve reading the record in the personnel file. But,
>why ask the witness, rather than reading the record?

I suspect the point is to lead to a follow-up question in which you invite
the witness to agree that he was insufficiently qualified and trained for
the role to which he had been appointed.

Mark

[Simon Parker]

Indeed.

And that the "investigation" was an investigation in name alone and that
its main objective was to get the money that Horizon claimed was
missing, even if this meant lying to the SPM about the contract they'd
signed and their legal liability to the Post Office.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 09/02/2024 16:08, GB wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 13:12, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>>> The counter-argument is:
>>>
>>> In most cases, the documents speak for themselves. So, it is
>>> necessary to ask what a witness can add? Well, he may remember things
>>> that are not in the documents. For that purpose, there's no need for
>>> him to read the documents.
>>
>> Or as is more likely, questions need to be asked that aren't covered
>> in the document.  For example, "Upon being appointed as an
>> Investigator by Post Office Limited, what formal training did you
>> receive to prepare you for the role?"
>
> That's a reasonable question,

I'm glad you think so since that was a line of questioning the Inquiry
followed. :-)

> but it may be answerable with some
> accuracy by reference to a personnel record. I'd expect a record of
> training to be kept. Asking a witness on the stand, without warning,
> seems a ludicrous way to elicit that information. It would be slightly
> better to provide advance warning of the question, so the witness can
> gather his thoughts, but it's a fundamentally bad way of going about it.

I can only conclude either that you're joking or that you haven't been
following the various Post Office judgments.

It has been stated numerous times that numerous Witness Statements had
no basis in reality and it was only under cross-examination that the
truth came out.

So misleading were some of the Witness Statements that Fraser J (as he
was at the time) referred them to the DPP.

I'll give you one such quote from Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3)
[2019] EWHC 606 (QB) [1]

<quote>
502. It is a puzzle how someone can expressly say their checklist was
the same as that of Mrs Ridge, if they have never seen Mrs Ridge’s
checklist. It is also a puzzle how a witness statement can say a witness
did a particular thing, produce a document in reference to that, but
then the witness themselves say that they have not seen the document
produced in support.
<end quote>

Relying on paper evidence wouldn't work as the Post Office can't be
trusted to produce all relevant documents nor can the contents of the
documents they produce be trusted because they have been caught either
withholding relevant information or falsifying information.

Giving advance notice of the questions wouldn't work either as some Post
Office witnesses had clearly been coached and had rehearsed many of
their answers prior to attending court and it was only under cross
examination that the cracks appeared.

>>> It may be necessary to ask Mr Grant to elucidate some point or other
>>> in the documents. Maybe, something is ambiguous or unclear. If there
>>> are thousands of pages of documents, there's no point in an ordinary
>>> mortal reading them in advance. Maybe, there is for someone with a
>>> prodigious memory, but not an ordinary person.
>>
>> "What formal training in investigation did you receive following your
>> appointment as an investigator?" does not require reading thousands of
>> pages of documents.
>
> It shouldn't only involve reading the record in the personnel file. But,
> why ask the witness, rather than reading the record?

As above.

> Supposing the personnel record is not available, how much can Mr G add
> from memory? Apparently, not very much.

I can state with absolute certainly any training I've received either
when starting a new role within the same organisation or when starting
in a role with a new organisation.

Mr Grant was able to answer the question too.

>> For example, were the Post Office to claim that their investigators
>> underwent a vigorous and comprehensive training programme prior to
>> being deployed in the field to carry out investigations then it would
>> be possible to ask a senior investigator about this training programme.
>>
>> Similarly, it would be possible to ask questions about how
>> investigations were handled, the objective, techniques used, data
>> acquired, evidential levels, etc.
>
> If Mr Grant cannot recall the information, what would you have him do?

I'd ask a series of questions in an attempt to assist his recollection.

> Todal would have had Mr G read a load of documents, make notes, and then
> tell the Inquiry what his notes say, but surely the Inquiry is perfectly
> capable of reading the documents and making their own notes?

A couple of issues raised during one of the Post Office trails
demonstrate why this approach wouldn't have worked. One concerned the
contract SPMs were required to sign. The documents adduced by the Post
Office stated that all SPMs had sight of the contract and were
instructed to take independent legal advice prior to signing it.

Numerous SPMs claimed this wasn't the case and, under cross-examination,
the Post Office was eventually forced to concede that in many instances
SPMs signed the contracts blind, i.e. on first sight, without having
taken prior legal advice.

Ditto for the training new SPMs received and the handover from the
outgoing SPM to the incoming one.

>>> For that purpose, a sensible course would be for the Inquiry to list
>>> out the questions Mr Grant needs to answer, supply him with the
>>> relevant documents plus their context, and ask for his written
>>> answers. He can then be examined in court on those answers.
>>>
>>> If, instead, Mr Grant was sent say 10 ring binders of documents and
>>> told to turn up and answer questions out of the blue, my sympathy is
>>> entirely with Mr Grant.
>>
>> "With great power comes great responsibility."
>
> And, this homily will somehow or other improve his memory?

Mr Grant was an Investigation Manager. He was responsible for the
training new investigators received and controlled how investigations
were conducted. He was reasonably well remunerated for this role. His
responsibility to provide evidence to the Inquiry is commensurate with
the power he previously wielded within the Post Office.

Regards

S.P.

[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/606.html#para365

[GB]

On 12/02/2024 09:42, Simon Parker wrote:

> A couple of issues raised during one of the Post Office trails
> demonstrate why this approach wouldn't have worked.  One concerned the
> contract SPMs were required to sign.  The documents adduced by the Post
> Office stated that all SPMs had sight of the contract and were
> instructed to take independent legal advice prior to signing it.
>
> Numerous SPMs claimed this wasn't the case and, under cross-examination,
> the Post Office was eventually forced to concede that in many instances
> SPMs signed the contracts blind, i.e. on first sight, without having
> taken prior legal advice.

Surely, anybody who would sign a complicated contract without reading it
and taking appropriate advice is wholly unsuited to be a post master? I
had a lot of sympathy for their plight, previously.

>>> "With great power comes great responsibility."
>>
>> And, this homily will somehow or other improve his memory?
>
> Mr Grant was an Investigation Manager.  He was responsible for the
> training new investigators received and controlled how investigations
> were conducted.  He was reasonably well remunerated for this role.  His
> responsibility to provide evidence to the Inquiry is commensurate with
> the power he previously wielded within the Post Office.
>

Agreed, but it doesn't answer my question.

Essentially, you are saying that the documents cannot be trusted, so we
should rely instead on people's recollection of events 20 years ago -
discounting evidence that people's memories cannot be trusted.

[Roger Hayter]

On 12 Feb 2024 at 17:22:19 GMT, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 09:42, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> A couple of issues raised during one of the Post Office trails
>> demonstrate why this approach wouldn't have worked. One concerned the
>> contract SPMs were required to sign. The documents adduced by the Post
>> Office stated that all SPMs had sight of the contract and were
>> instructed to take independent legal advice prior to signing it.
>>
>> Numerous SPMs claimed this wasn't the case and, under cross-examination,
>> the Post Office was eventually forced to concede that in many instances
>> SPMs signed the contracts blind, i.e. on first sight, without having
>> taken prior legal advice.
>
> Surely, anybody who would sign a complicated contract without reading it
> and taking appropriate advice is wholly unsuited to be a post master? I
> had a lot of sympathy for their plight, previously.

In their defence; you would think a government body would have a fair
contract; it was the only game in town; a lot of people may have thought of it
like an employment contract, and it was like one in the sense the PO could
vary it, as they did radically with the fewer safeguards in Horizon Online.
So I am not sure I blame them that much, especially for not abandoning their
living and their investment when the contracts were changed.

>
>
>
>
>>>> "With great power comes great responsibility."
>>>
>>> And, this homily will somehow or other improve his memory?
>>
>> Mr Grant was an Investigation Manager. He was responsible for the
>> training new investigators received and controlled how investigations
>> were conducted. He was reasonably well remunerated for this role. His
>> responsibility to provide evidence to the Inquiry is commensurate with
>> the power he previously wielded within the Post Office.
>>
>
> Agreed, but it doesn't answer my question.
>
> Essentially, you are saying that the documents cannot be trusted, so we
> should rely instead on people's recollection of events 20 years ago -
> discounting evidence that people's memories cannot be trusted.

--
Roger Hayter

[Simon Parker]

On 12/02/2024 17:22, GB wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 09:42, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> A couple of issues raised during one of the Post Office trails
>> demonstrate why this approach wouldn't have worked.  One concerned the
>> contract SPMs were required to sign.  The documents adduced by the
>> Post Office stated that all SPMs had sight of the contract and were
>> instructed to take independent legal advice prior to signing it.
>>
>> Numerous SPMs claimed this wasn't the case and, under
>> cross-examination, the Post Office was eventually forced to concede
>> that in many instances SPMs signed the contracts blind, i.e. on first
>> sight, without having taken prior legal advice.
>
> Surely, anybody who would sign a complicated contract without reading it
> and taking appropriate advice is wholly unsuited to be a post master? I
> had a lot of sympathy for their plight, previously.

Scenario A: "This is a legally binding document which is complex and
onerous. We insist you take it away with you and provide evidence of
having taken independent professional legal advice prior to signing it."

Scenario B: "This is a standard contract. All SPMs are required to sign
it prior to being appointed as a SPM. There's nothing unusual in here.
The Union has no problems with it and if anything happens, the Union
will help you sort it." Etc.

The Post Office claimed scenario A always applied whereas the SPMs
claimed scenario B was more typical.

>>>> "With great power comes great responsibility."
>>>
>>> And, this homily will somehow or other improve his memory?
>>
>> Mr Grant was an Investigation Manager.  He was responsible for the
>> training new investigators received and controlled how investigations
>> were conducted.  He was reasonably well remunerated for this role.
>> His responsibility to provide evidence to the Inquiry is commensurate
>> with the power he previously wielded within the Post Office.
>>
> Agreed, but it doesn't answer my question.
>
> Essentially, you are saying that the documents cannot be trusted, so we
> should rely instead on people's recollection of events 20 years ago -
> discounting evidence that people's memories cannot be trusted.

In the case of The Post Office and Fujitsu, the documents *alone* cannot
be trusted. (This was made clear in the more recent judgments.)

Nor have I ever stated that I discount evidence that people's memories
cannot be trusted.

I recommend watching the videos of the Inquiry and you will see numerous
examples of how a skilled and experienced leading silk, that has been
instructed, (often as lead counsel), in most of the major inquiries,
gets to the heart of the key matters through the use of expert questioning.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 13/02/2024 11:44, Simon Parker wrote:

>> Surely, anybody who would sign a complicated contract without reading
>> it and taking appropriate advice is wholly unsuited to be a post
>> master? I had a lot of sympathy for their plight, previously.
>
> Scenario A: "This is a legally binding document which is complex and
> onerous.  We insist you take it away with you and provide evidence of
> having taken independent professional legal advice prior to signing it."
>
> Scenario B: "This is a standard contract.  All SPMs are required to sign
> it prior to being appointed as a SPM.  There's nothing unusual in here.
> The Union has no problems with it and if anything happens, the Union
> will help you sort it." Etc.
>
> The Post Office claimed scenario A always applied whereas the SPMs
> claimed scenario B was more typical.

I had already understood that scenario B may have applied in some/many
cases. It doesn't excuse gross negligence on the part of the SPMs. No
wonder they got into a pickle!

[Simon Parker]

The contract didn't actually state what Post Office "Investigators"
later claimed it did, nor were SPMs as liable as they were told they were.

I see this as another mark against the Post Office rather than against
the SPMs.

YMMV as indeed it appears to.

You might like to read this news article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68262178 which is a
fine example of how the Post Office handles changes to their contracts
with SPMs are how "fair" and "reasonable" the Post Office are in dealing
with SPMs that resign as a result of changes to their contract.

(Spoiler Alert: In the cited news article, one of the SPMs quoted
estimated his income would be about two thirds less under the new
contract. He chose to resign rather than accept the new contract.
However, if the SPMs that have resigned rather than accept the new
contract cannot find a suitable replacement to take over their role by
the end of March 2024, (which given that one of the SPMs quoted in the
article has been trying to do this since 2018 without success seems
unlikely in the extreme), their severance payment of 26 months' pay will
be cut to just 12 month's pay costing them 14 months' pay which they say
is unfair.)

It may change your mind. Or not. I'll leave it with you.

Regards

S.P.

[billy bookcase]

"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:uqfq99$23ivd$1...@dont-email.me...

I would hardly categorise it as "gross negligence" to accept in good faith,
the word of what was at that time, "Britain's Most Trusted Brand".

If you couldn't trust the Post Office, then who could you trust ?

Which may be one of the reasons why aspiring SPO's sought to take up the
role the first place. Rather than say take on a MacDonalds franchise.


bb

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:41:52 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:uqfq99$23ivd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>

>> I had already understood that scenario B may have applied in some/many cases. It
>> doesn't excuse gross negligence on the part of the SPMs. No wonder they got into a
>> pickle!
>
>I would hardly categorise it as "gross negligence" to accept in good faith,
>the word of what was at that time, "Britain's Most Trusted Brand".
>
>If you couldn't trust the Post Office, then who could you trust ?
>
>Which may be one of the reasons why aspiring SPO's sought to take up the
>role the first place. Rather than say take on a MacDonalds franchise.

And franchise contracts in general are almost always "take it or leave it".
If you don't want the local franchise, someone else will. The franchisor has
no incentive to enter into discussions with potential franchisees about the
minutiae of the contract, beyond any genuinely optional sections, and trying
to get them to engage in such a discussion may well result in the
opportunity being withdrawn.

Mark

[GB]

On 13/02/2024 13:53, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 13:19, GB wrote:
>> On 13/02/2024 11:44, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>>> Surely, anybody who would sign a complicated contract without
>>>> reading it and taking appropriate advice is wholly unsuited to be a
>>>> post master? I had a lot of sympathy for their plight, previously.
>>>
>>> Scenario A: "This is a legally binding document which is complex and
>>> onerous.  We insist you take it away with you and provide evidence of
>>> having taken independent professional legal advice prior to signing it."
>>>
>>> Scenario B: "This is a standard contract.  All SPMs are required to
>>> sign it prior to being appointed as a SPM.  There's nothing unusual
>>> in here. The Union has no problems with it and if anything happens,
>>> the Union will help you sort it." Etc.
>>>
>>> The Post Office claimed scenario A always applied whereas the SPMs
>>> claimed scenario B was more typical.
>>
>> I had already understood that scenario B may have applied in some/many
>> cases. It doesn't excuse gross negligence on the part of the SPMs. No
>> wonder they got into a pickle!
>
> The contract didn't actually state what Post Office "Investigators"
> later claimed it did, nor were SPMs as liable as they were told they were.

Are you really trying to excuse people for not reading and understanding
the contracts they entered into? We are talking here about people with a
responsible financial role, not an ordinary employee.

And, later, when they were called to account over the contract, they
still did not know what was in it? They didn't at least then read it?
They didn't take legal advice about it?

[Simon Parker]

On 13/02/2024 16:00, GB wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 13:53, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 13/02/2024 13:19, GB wrote:

>>> I had already understood that scenario B may have applied in
>>> some/many cases. It doesn't excuse gross negligence on the part of
>>> the SPMs. No wonder they got into a pickle!
>>
>> The contract didn't actually state what Post Office "Investigators"
>> later claimed it did, nor were SPMs as liable as they were told they
>> were.
>
> Are you really trying to excuse people for not reading and understanding
> the contracts they entered into? We are talking here about people with a
> responsible financial role, not an ordinary employee.

Excuse? No. Understand? Yes, (nearly) always.

> And, later, when they were called to account over the contract, they
> still did not know what was in it? They didn't at least then read it?
> They didn't take legal advice about it?

When an SPM has an acknowledged shortfall and several "inspectors" in
attendance with the sole aim of 'bullying' them into paying up under
threat of gaoling them if they don't pay up regardless of the
circumstances that created the shortfall, and they are aware that
several other SPMs have been forced into repaying the shortfall, I find
it perfectly understandable that the SPM's thinking may have been clouded.

As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes. When the
shortfall is less than the likely cost of legal advice, which route is
most appealing, particularly as repaying may allow one to continue in
post (pun intended, for which I apologise) whilst fighting it will
almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?

It is fine sitting here in 2024 with the benefit of hindsight knowing
what we now know about Horizon and that SPMs are having their
convictions overturned and are receiving compensation for the injustice
visited upon them, but when you have a team of inspectors demanding
money and telling you that you'll be gaoled if you don't pay it back,
then, as I say, I find it perfectly understandable that their judgment
may have been clouded.

YMMV.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 14/02/2024 13:51, Simon Parker wrote:

> As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes.  When the
> shortfall is less than the likely cost of legal advice, which route is
> most appealing, particularly as repaying may allow one to continue in
> post (pun intended, for which I apologise) whilst fighting it will
> almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?

Just a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these
SPMs of financial irregularities - well, embezzlement. Surely, there can
be no circumstances in which the SPM can remain in post?

Besides that, I didn't think we were talking about small discrepancies.
I thought the figures were often tens of thousands?

[billy bookcase]

"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:uqihll$2lrsh$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 14/02/2024 13:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes. When the shortfall is
>> less than the likely cost of legal advice, which route is most appealing, particularly
>> as repaying may allow one to continue in post (pun intended, for which I apologise)
>> whilst fighting it will almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?
>
> Just a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these SPMs of financial
> irregularities - well, embezzlement. Surely, there can be no circumstances in which the
> SPM can remain in post?

If the inspectors had been made aware of any of the numerous bug reports
detailed at length in the Bates judgement, there should have been no circumstances
where they should have been prosecuting SPM's on Horizon evidence alone,
at all.

In the Bates judgement it's actually stated that in the case of bugs suspected of
causing the largest discrepencies, these would be downgraded to class 3 bugs
in the reports to save drawing too much attention to them and no action taken
against affected SPO's Although obviously this failed on occasion

>
> Besides that, I didn't think we were talking about small discrepancies. I thought the
> figures were often tens of thousands?

quote:

[The honest customer brought the money back ]

455
>Horizon Online also did not have a happy birth. The pilot for it had to be
stopped, and Fujitsu put it on what was called "red alert". Mr Godeseth
described this as "very serious". The biggest issue was with Oracle,
which was what Mr Godeseth was working on and hence knew the most
about, but he explained that there were other problems going on at the
same time. Some of these problems were put to him - and it must be
remembered that this was a pilot scheme, with some problems to be
expected - * and they included cash being short on one day by £1,000
because a transaction for £1,000 did not show up on the online report
facility; cash withdrawals being authorised on screen yet the printed
receipt being declined (the customer very honestly brought the cash back
next day having noticed the receipt wording)*; a similar problem with a
cash deposit; and * remming in figures all being doubled up*

[ Terminal deliberately left on overnight to catch bugs ]

481
"I now have pressing evidence to suggest that unwanted peripheral input
is occurring, the likely source being the screen. This has been seen at
Old Isleworth ...* When the PM has been asked to leave the screen on
overnight* I have observed system activity corresponding to screen presses
happening with no corresponding evidence of either routine system activity
or human interference. The way forward now is to correlate this with Microtouch
complied monitoring software and to this ends Wendy is arranging for
installation of the kit on Friday..." .


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-post-office-judgment.pdf


bb

[Simon Parker]

On 14/02/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 13:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes.  When the
>> shortfall is less than the likely cost of legal advice, which route is
>> most appealing, particularly as repaying may allow one to continue in
>> post (pun intended, for which I apologise) whilst fighting it will
>> almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?
>
> Just a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these
> SPMs of financial irregularities - well, embezzlement. Surely, there can
> be no circumstances in which the SPM can remain in post?

An example will help address this point.

Martin Griffiths started running Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great
Sutton, Cheshire in 1995.

By 2009, he been running it successfully for 14 years and in that time,
in common with most SPMs, had swallowed small, but unexplained, shortfalls.

However, four figure discrepancies were now showing up on Horizon
prompting Mr Griffiths to declare these discrepancies to the Post Office.

The Post Office were perfectly understanding and reasonable and admitted
there were known issues with Horizon which might explain these losses so
they'd investigate immediately and, in the meantime, put the
discrepancies in a suspense account so they were no longer visible to Mr
Griffiths during the thorough investigation process the Post Office
insisted needed to carried out as a matter of urgency.

Sadly, we all know the contents of the last paragraph, whilst an
accurate reflection of what *should* have happened have no connection to
what actually happened which is that the Post Office responded in their
typical uncompromising manner, insisting Horizon was functioning
perfectly, and that, as per his contract with them, Mr Griffiths would
need to make good these "losses" from personal savings.

Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.

He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than £57,000
had gone missing. Having exhausted his own savings, Mr Griffiths turned
to his parents who lent him their life savings.

As if Horizon discrepancies weren't bad enough, (and I think this next
bit really gives an insight in the Post Office's thinking and treatment
of SPMs throughout), in May 2013 armed robbers burst into his branch,
smashed his hand and threatened to beat him around the head if he didn't
hand over the contents of the safe. The robbers left with around
£54,000 in cash.

Two months later, Mr Griffiths was informed that as he had 'failed to
manage discrepancies and securities at his branch', his contract was
being terminated. In a show of just how nasty and vindictive the Post
Office were to SPMs, in addition to being responsible for paying the
Horizon shortfall, he was informed he would be liable for some of the
stolen cash too! No, really!

Unfortunately, shortly thereafter Mr Griffiths left a note apologising
to his family and stepped in front of a bus. His life support systems
were turned off some three weeks later.

The Post Office didn't inform the replacement new incoming SPM to Great
Sutton what had happened to the previous SPM. However, within a few
months, this experienced SPM who'd previously run a successful branch
without notable incident, was also now finding discrepancies on Horizon.
He was suspended and told to pay the Post Office the "missing" money.

Takeaways from this very sorry tale:

Firstly, the Post Office didn't care if their SPMs were dishonest or
incompetent, so long as they made good the losses and it wasn't costing
the Post Office money. A reasonable, responsible organisation might
have despatched a trainer, who having provided necessary training, then
monitored the SPM throughout the day and had a "Horizon Terminal" app on
their laptops into which they could enter each transaction in tandem
with the SPM thereby generating a verifiable total from somebody
experienced with the system as an additional check and balance on human
/ hardware error. Unfortunately, these exercises often showed that the
total at which the trainer arrived and that presented by the branch's
Horizon terminal were different so that simply wouldn't do. Better not
to get involved and just leave the SPM believing it is their fault and
therefore their responsibility to put it right.

Secondly, certain branches seemed more susceptible to Horizon errors
than others. Here we have two experienced SPMs, one of whom had been
running Horizon without major incident at a branch for some years, yet
had issues within a few months of moving to Hope Farm Road.

> Besides that, I didn't think we were talking about small discrepancies.
> I thought the figures were often tens of thousands?

Small discrepancies were usually swallowed by the SPM without involving
the Post Office. It was only when the discrepancies reached a point
where this was not possible, or where the SPM had exhausted their
personal savings and so couldn't absorb further losses that the Post
Office "investigators" appeared on the scene.

But some Horizon bugs were known to generate discrepancies of just small
amounts of money - for example cash withdrawals being recorded by
Horizon as "declined" (i.e. the customer didn't take the cash) when in
fact they had taken the money.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 15/02/2024 10:51, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 13:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>> As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes.  When
>>> the shortfall is less than the likely cost of legal advice, which
>>> route is most appealing, particularly as repaying may allow one to
>>> continue in post (pun intended, for which I apologise) whilst
>>> fighting it will almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?
>>
>> Just a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these
>> SPMs of financial irregularities - well, embezzlement. Surely, there
>> can be no circumstances in which the SPM can remain in post?
>
> An example will help address this point.
>
> Martin Griffiths started running Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great
> Sutton, Cheshire in 1995.
>
> By 2009, he been running it successfully for 14 years and in that time,
> in common with most SPMs, had swallowed small, but unexplained, shortfalls.
>
> However, four figure discrepancies were now showing up on Horizon
> prompting Mr Griffiths to declare these discrepancies to the Post Office.

A SPM earns around £25k pa, net of tax. If discrepancies are significant
in comparison, the logical thing to do is to refuse to continue. It's
remarkable how some of these poor people soldiered on, losing almost
more money than they were earning.

>
> Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
> Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.
>
> He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
> Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than £57,000
> had gone missing.

So, in 18 months, he 'lost' two years pay.

[Simon Parker]

On 15/02/2024 12:08, GB wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 10:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2024 13:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes.  When
>>>> the shortfall is less than the likely cost of legal advice, which
>>>> route is most appealing, particularly as repaying may allow one to
>>>> continue in post (pun intended, for which I apologise) whilst
>>>> fighting it will almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?
>>>
>>> Just a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these
>>> SPMs of financial irregularities - well, embezzlement. Surely, there
>>> can be no circumstances in which the SPM can remain in post?
>>
>> An example will help address this point.
>>
>> Martin Griffiths started running Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great
>> Sutton, Cheshire in 1995.
>>
>> By 2009, he been running it successfully for 14 years and in that
>> time, in common with most SPMs, had swallowed small, but unexplained,
>> shortfalls.
>>
>> However, four figure discrepancies were now showing up on Horizon
>> prompting Mr Griffiths to declare these discrepancies to the Post Office.
>
> A SPM earns around £25k pa, net of tax.

That seems remarkably low. This debate on Hansard [1] seems to suggest
that the average salary is around £48K and the calculations for the
branch in Shetland seem to confirm that.

> If discrepancies are significant
> in comparison, the logical thing to do is to refuse to continue. It's
> remarkable how some of these poor people soldiered on, losing almost
> more money than they were earning.

As is made clear in the debate referenced above, the SPMs aren't doing
it for the money. They're doing it because the Post Office is at the
centre of the community and without it there may be no banking
facilities whatsoever for the digitally excluded.

Most would earn more money closing the Post Office and installing a
Costa Coffee machine in its place.

The Post Office's own figures indicate that only 9,500 of their 11,700
branches offer full-time service, the rest are simply not viable and run
on goodwill alone.

The Orkney branch seems to be expected to run for 35 hours per week in
the summer and 15 hours a week in the winter for £390.90 per month which
is hovering dangerously close to NMW.

>> Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
>> Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.
>>
>> He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
>> Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than
>> £57,000 had gone missing.
>
> So, in 18 months, he 'lost' two years pay.

A little over a year's pay, by my reckoning.

Regards

S.P.

[1]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-05-23/debates/A661BD74-519D-4570-9838-3734EF9231E7/Sub-PostmastersAndSub-PostmistressesRemuneration

[GB]

I looked it up on Glass Door, which says base salary of £26-43k, plus
additional cash compensation of £3k.

One difference is that I allowed roughly for tax and NI.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/sub-postmaster-salary-SRCH_KO0,14.htm

>
>
>> If discrepancies are significant in comparison, the logical thing to
>> do is to refuse to continue. It's remarkable how some of these poor
>> people soldiered on, losing almost more money than they were earning.
>
> As is made clear in the debate referenced above, the SPMs aren't doing
> it for the money.  They're doing it because the Post Office is at the
> centre of the community and without it there may be no banking
> facilities whatsoever for the digitally excluded.
>
> Most would earn more money closing the Post Office and installing a
> Costa Coffee machine in its place.
>
> The Post Office's own figures indicate that only 9,500 of their 11,700
> branches offer full-time service, the rest are simply not viable and run
> on goodwill alone.
>
> The Orkney branch seems to be expected to run for 35 hours per week in
> the summer and 15 hours a week in the winter for £390.90 per month which
> is hovering dangerously close to NMW.
>
>
>>> Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
>>> Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.
>>>
>>> He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
>>> Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than
>>> £57,000 had gone missing.
>>
>> So, in 18 months, he 'lost' two years pay.
>
> A little over a year's pay, by my reckoning.

It's a crazy situation to be in. I'm afraid that I would have stopped a
lot earlier than Mr G.

[Fredxx]

On 15/02/2024 12:08, GB wrote:

> On 15/02/2024 10:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2024 13:51, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for legal advice, it costs money - lots of it, sometimes.  When
>>>> the shortfall is less than the likely cost of legal advice, which
>>>> route is most appealing, particularly as repaying may allow one to
>>>> continue in post (pun intended, for which I apologise) whilst
>>>> fighting it will almost certainly lead to one's suspension and sacking?
>>>
>>> Just a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these
>>> SPMs of financial irregularities - well, embezzlement. Surely, there
>>> can be no circumstances in which the SPM can remain in post?
>>
>> An example will help address this point.
>>
>> Martin Griffiths started running Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great
>> Sutton, Cheshire in 1995.
>>
>> By 2009, he been running it successfully for 14 years and in that
>> time, in common with most SPMs, had swallowed small, but unexplained,
>> shortfalls.
>>
>> However, four figure discrepancies were now showing up on Horizon
>> prompting Mr Griffiths to declare these discrepancies to the Post Office.
>
> A SPM earns around £25k pa, net of tax. If discrepancies are significant
> in comparison, the logical thing to do is to refuse to continue. It's
> remarkable how some of these poor people soldiered on, losing almost
> more money than they were earning.

Yes, I know it's a form of drama, but the TV series suggested a SPM was
on the way to making £60k per year. So £25k is perhaps the basic salary?

I think more research is required!

>> Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
>> Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.
>>
>> He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
>> Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than
>> £57,000 had gone missing.
>
> So, in 18 months, he 'lost' two years pay.

You would have thought he might have started an old fashioned book
ledger with those kind of losses. More hassle, maybe, but not 2 years
worth of hassle.

[Simon Parker]

On 15/02/2024 13:30, GB wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 12:50, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 15/02/2024 12:08, GB wrote:

>>> A SPM earns around £25k pa, net of tax.
>>
>> That seems remarkably low.  This debate on Hansard [1] seems to
>> suggest that the average salary is around £48K and the calculations
>> for the branch in Shetland seem to confirm that.
>
> I looked it up on Glass Door, which says base salary of £26-43k, plus
> additional cash compensation of £3k.
>
> One difference is that I allowed roughly for tax and NI.
>
> https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/sub-postmaster-salary-SRCH_KO0,14.htm

I believe the Post Office now pays a fee per transaction to the SPM
under the new contract (discussed previously in this thread, when it was
mentioned that some SPMs would lose a significant portion of their
earnings as a result). Post Offices that aren't very busy will not be
earning their SPMs much money at all, and in some cases will be costing
them money. (Reference previous comment regarding a Costa Coffee
machine being more profitable for them.)


[...]

>>>> Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
>>>> Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.
>>>>
>>>> He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
>>>> Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than
>>>> £57,000 had gone missing.
>>>
>>> So, in 18 months, he 'lost' two years pay.
>>
>> A little over a year's pay, by my reckoning.
>
> It's a crazy situation to be in. I'm afraid that I would have stopped a
> lot earlier than Mr G.

I'd have stopped the first day there was a discrepancy, but that's me
and I don't have a community that relies on me opening to be able to
function. If I did have that burden on me, I might answer differently.
But I wouldn't want to be in that situation in the first place.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 15/02/2024 13:11, Fredxx wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 12:08, GB wrote:
>> On 15/02/2024 10:51, Simon Parker wrote:

>>> An example will help address this point.
>>>
>>> Martin Griffiths started running Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great
>>> Sutton, Cheshire in 1995.
>>>
>>> By 2009, he been running it successfully for 14 years and in that
>>> time, in common with most SPMs, had swallowed small, but unexplained,
>>> shortfalls.
>>>
>>> However, four figure discrepancies were now showing up on Horizon
>>> prompting Mr Griffiths to declare these discrepancies to the Post
>>> Office.
>>
>> A SPM earns around £25k pa, net of tax. If discrepancies are
>> significant in comparison, the logical thing to do is to refuse to
>> continue. It's remarkable how some of these poor people soldiered on,
>> losing almost more money than they were earning.
>
> Yes, I know it's a form of drama, but the TV series suggested a SPM was
> on the way to making £60k per year. So £25k is perhaps the basic salary?
>
> I think more research is required!

The Post Office has introduced a new contract for SPMs since the time of
the programme. The new contract is far less generous than the previous
one for low volume branches.

>>> Page forward two years and Post Office "investigators" visited Mr
>>> Griffiths stating his balance was now out by £23,000.
>>>
>>> He was suspended then reinstated, but the losses continued to grow.
>>> Between January 2012 and October 2013, Horizon claimed more than
>>> £57,000 had gone missing.
>>
>> So, in 18 months, he 'lost' two years pay.
>
> You would have thought he might have started an old fashioned book
> ledger with those kind of losses. More hassle, maybe, but not 2 years
> worth of hassle.

I'd have fired up an Excel spreadsheet, but that's me, and I have
hindsight and knowledge of the issues with Horizon.

Regards

S.P.