The earlier broadcast material, both the long-running radio 4 blog and Panorama, were very factual and quite dry. They probably had a tiny audience compared with the ITV drama.
To turn the bald facts into a drama, some linking material was needed - such as a conversation between Alan Bates and his wife as they waited to see if anyone would attend their village hall meeting. The content of such material was most likely imagined, and certainly not verbatim. I have no problem with that.
I am confident that anything material to the facts of the case was very carefully researched to render it injunction-proof. Otherwise the Post Office & Fujitsu would have been scattering writs like confetti.
I think there is probably a lot more to emerge about who knew what and when. This may shed some light not only on why occurred in the first place, but also has been allowed to drag on for so long, waiting for a mass public reaction of horror for the powers-that-be to get their collective fingers out. Or should that read to start covering their arses?
The damage done to the lives of so many sub-post masters & mistresses and their families is unforgivable. If Fujitsu or any of the managers of Fujitsu or the Post Office can be proved to have been culpable, I hope they are fined considerable damages, and that this money is used to offset some of the compensation owed to the victims. Of course, the majority of the compensation will come from the long-suffering tax payers. Money which could otherwise have gone towards repairing/replacing crumbling 20th century school & hospital RAC buildings and Victorian infrastructure.
I've almost finished reading the book by Nick Wallis, which inspired the ITV drama and I find it incredible that The Post Office was still spending huge sums of money fighting in the courts, when it knew that the actions taken against sub postmasters were unsafe.
Adjourned now until 9th April when next phase starts.
REALLY dragging this out hoping the outrage will die down
I don't think so. This is just how long these things take.
Don't forget it the enquiry started before the TV programme - and the elevation of the issue in the public mind - and it will have a proper timetable and schedule in place so they can give people sufficient time and warning to keep dates free, etc.
Of course, whether these things SHOULD take so long is a different question.
The judge said that they will combine the next 2 modules which will actually shorten the time. The gap is needed to work through the files. The final section will be in September.
With the latest revelations, it is time that the Police did get involved in the Post Office scandal. If that means that some of those Board Directors and those that sit at the top of other institutions take their responsibilities a bit more seriously rather than drawing a massive income (£8.2m in the case of the British Gas CEO) and yet not being able to send an engineer out for weeks to a pensioner who has no heating or the water companies that have handed out dividends of £72 billion and yet have debts of £60 billion, then so much the better.
Every single postmaster and postmistress affected should have had every penny of losses and every penny of compensation paid in full by now. Reporters have to dig and investigate every angle to get the hidden truth and it takes years. The authorities have had years to investigate and explore every single claim, so those affected should get their money immediately, but no amount of mere money can compensate for their suffering. The message is never to take anything downloaded to you from any person or institution in ‘authority’ on trust, always be suspicious, always question everything from politicians, from those who say get a smart meter to those who take control of your football club.
Everyone involved in the cover-up and lies, must be prosecuted and go to prison, so they suffer like those whom they sent to prison.
And crucially we have to stop running this country's institutions like they are rich people's playthings. We are told that we have to pay silly money to get the highest calibre people, but it's not true. You pay silly money and you attract the greedy and self-entitled.
I noticed this was a draft report. So who saw it and why did it not become a final report? And if it did then who received a copy and what did they do with it? There are so many people that need to be brought to account for their decisions. I get the impression that this draft report was not disclosed to the public inquiry. It's just scandalous. This definitely needs a police investigation.
I noticed this was a draft report. So who saw it and why did it not become a final report? And if it did then who received a copy and what did they do with it? There are so many people that need to be brought to account for their decisions. I get the impression that this draft report was not disclosed to the public inquiry. It's just scandalous. This definitely needs a police investigation.
If a "draft" report says something you don't like then you don't get it finalised. That way, I presume the thinking goes, it's not the final document and so you can ignore it because its still, theoretically, subject to change.
It does. You would have hoped the Deloitte ethics committee might have considered their position once people started being the subject of court action.
It does. You would have hoped the Deloitte ethics committee might have considered their position once people started being the subject of court action.
You know what I am going to say, broken record that I am... Private Eye, in virtually every issue, reports on one of the big audit firms being fined for malpractice, they pay the fine, they carry on doing it... Ethics? Non-existant, Ant.
I have been following the questioning of Alan Bates this morning. It has been riveting quite frankly. Amongst others I feel it is safe to say that’s it for the leader of the Liberals Ed Davey, he comes out of this badly. However the scandal goes back before Davey to when the Labour Party was in government. The briefing given to Davey before his ‘meeting’ with Alan Bates was about denial and damage limitation, and to emphasise that he was at ‘arms length’ from the reasonably raised issue. No desire to pin down the actual truth. Davey was the minister in charge at the time, even if new to the job and government.
I noticed this was a draft report. So who saw it and why did it not become a final report? And if it did then who received a copy and what did they do with it? There are so many people that need to be brought to account for their decisions. I get the impression that this draft report was not disclosed to the public inquiry. It's just scandalous. This definitely needs a police investigation.
Not to defend the conduct of any PO executive since 2000 (when Alan Bates got so close to the truth they sacked him), it is apparent that several of them have been ignoring the truth and punishing people they knew to be innocent, but there is a highly unpalatable bit of context around their recruitment. From 2012 Paula Vennells and Nick Read's total packages as CEO averaged £1M per year - the FTSE top 100 UK CEO average package was closer to £4M p.a. over the same period. As was so often seen with nationalised businesses senior executive management was never rewarded at a level to attract people of adequate quality. Nobody worthy of running such a huge high profile business is going to take it on for 25% of the going rate. False economy of the most egregious kind. Packages (salary, pension, benefits & bonusses) around £1M p.a. ain't to be sniffed at but if that's a quarter of the going rate then we got what the politicians paid for. The FTSE top 100 CEO's packages would usually include share options, obviously not an option for P.O. but the peanuts and monkeys analogy still holds.
Isn't the story also about those in power and authority and their lickspittles, against those who are powerless? As somebody who questions everything I am well used to lickspittle apologists attacking me personally for doing so. It certainly happens on Charlton Life. In the evidence this morning we saw documents from people in power and authority, and their lickspittles, attacking Alan Bates on a personal level because engaging with the truth and the reality would expose them to be the charlatans they really are. A huge amount of playing the man and not the ball.
This afternoon a forgotten person Jo (I stand before you as your next Prime Minister) Swinson had a letter from her read out from when she was also in authority, basically telling Alan Bates he was wrong, she and the Post Office were right, end of. One of the victims was just on the wireless, she is unrecompensed and having to work two jobs a day to deal with her debts from the scandal. She works in a supermarket in the mornings, and does an ice cream van afternoons and evenings. She said she does not want those responsible to be imprisoned, but to be stripped of all their assets (money used to compensate the taxpayer) to the point where they were impoverished and needing benefits, and having to work two jobs a day like she and others have been forced to do.
Anybody involved in the cover up and ruthless lies of it's only affecting you should be jailed, end of. Including Fujitzu whose system it was. Absolute disgrace and abuse of power from the post office whose boss is really the government, so no shit sherlock they passed the blame. This whole thing has really boiled my piss.
Also heard today from my local small post office that they had dummy transactions going through the account in this period. When this was queried they were told it would all be reversed to zero. As an old IT War horse my money is on a lack of the post office IT infrastructure to allow changes to be properly system tested then undergo user acceptance testing before being allowed to go live. So potentially testing in a live environment.
It amazes me how these highly paid executives seem to know so little about the companies that they run. If you are making decisions you should know how your company works.
Alan Cook former Managing Director of The Post Office from 2006 to 2010, during which time the PO prosecuted 200 Sub Postmasters & Sub Mistresses, said he didn't know that the PO carried out its own prosecutions.
Adam Crozier to give evidence later, that should be interesting.
It amazes me how these highly paid executives seem to know so little about the companies that they run. If you are making decisions you should know how your company works.
Alan Cook former Managing Director of The Post Office from 2006 to 2010, during which time the PO prosecuted 200 Sub Postmasters & Sub Mistresses, said he didn't know that the PO carried out its own prosecutions.
Adam Crozier to give evidence later, that should be interesting.
Two of the criteria for getting the job. A memory like a goldfish and the ability to lie through your arse.
First, I do not believe for one second that Cook (and now Crozier) did not know that the Post Office ran its own prosecutions. The only other alternative is that they are both totally thick and incompetent. (Easy to believe with Crozier that's for sure.) I cannot now (surprise, surprise) find any press releases issued by the Post Office at the time but while not a betting man, I would bet that every single case had a press release issued trumpeting another prosecution success - even if only distributed to the local press.
In summary, the writer suggests that it was merely two strokes of luck rather than anything else that worked in the sub-postmasters' favour and also comes up with a shocking piece of news about how the Post Office went into full-on Trump mode and tried but failed to have the judge that was literally on their case recused.
Finally, on the assumption that the Post Office can be legally defined as a "Public Body" it seems to me that large numbers of co-conspirators in that organisation should be prosecuted for misfeasance in public office, the maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment. (I speculate that Cook and Crozier know this only to well and that is why they have gone all forgetful on us.)
Comments
To turn the bald facts into a drama, some linking material was needed - such as a conversation between Alan Bates and his wife as they waited to see if anyone would attend their village hall meeting. The content of such material was most likely imagined, and certainly not verbatim. I have no problem with that.
I am confident that anything material to the facts of the case was very carefully researched to render it injunction-proof. Otherwise the Post Office & Fujitsu would have been scattering writs like confetti.
I think there is probably a lot more to emerge about who knew what and when. This may shed some light not only on why occurred in the first place, but also has been allowed to drag on for so long, waiting for a mass public reaction of horror for the powers-that-be to get their collective fingers out. Or should that read to start covering their arses?
The damage done to the lives of so many sub-post masters & mistresses and their families is unforgivable. If Fujitsu or any of the managers of Fujitsu or the Post Office can be proved to have been culpable, I hope they are fined considerable damages, and that this money is used to offset some of the compensation owed to the victims. Of course, the majority of the compensation will come from the long-suffering tax payers. Money which could otherwise have gone towards repairing/replacing crumbling 20th century school & hospital RAC buildings and Victorian infrastructure.
Don't forget it the enquiry started before the TV programme - and the elevation of the issue in the public mind - and it will have a proper timetable and schedule in place so they can give people sufficient time and warning to keep dates free, etc.
Of course, whether these things SHOULD take so long is a different question.
Reporters have to dig and investigate every angle to get the hidden truth and it takes years. The authorities have had years to investigate and explore every single claim, so those affected should get their money immediately, but no amount of mere money can compensate for their suffering.
The message is never to take anything downloaded to you from any person or institution in ‘authority’ on trust, always be suspicious, always question everything from politicians, from those who say get a smart meter to those who take control of your football club.
Surely this must be obstruction of justice or perverting the course of justice?
So who saw it and why did it not become a final report? And if it did then who received a copy and what did they do with it?
There are so many people that need to be brought to account for their decisions.
I get the impression that this draft report was not disclosed to the public inquiry. It's just scandalous.
This definitely needs a police investigation.
Plausible deniability. Stinks, doesn't it.
It has been riveting quite frankly.
Amongst others I feel it is safe to say that’s it for the leader of the Liberals Ed Davey, he comes out of this badly. However the scandal goes back before Davey to when the Labour Party was in government.
The briefing given to Davey before his ‘meeting’ with Alan Bates was about denial and damage limitation, and to emphasise that he was at ‘arms length’ from the reasonably raised issue. No desire to pin down the actual truth.
Davey was the minister in charge at the time, even if new to the job and government.
From 2012 Paula Vennells and Nick Read's total packages as CEO averaged £1M per year - the FTSE top 100 UK CEO average package was closer to £4M p.a. over the same period.
As was so often seen with nationalised businesses senior executive management was never rewarded at a level to attract people of adequate quality.
Nobody worthy of running such a huge high profile business is going to take it on for 25% of the going rate. False economy of the most egregious kind.
Packages (salary, pension, benefits & bonusses) around £1M p.a. ain't to be sniffed at but if that's a quarter of the going rate then we got what the politicians paid for.
The FTSE top 100 CEO's packages would usually include share options, obviously not an option for P.O. but the peanuts and monkeys analogy still holds.
As somebody who questions everything I am well used to lickspittle apologists attacking me personally for doing so.
It certainly happens on Charlton Life.
In the evidence this morning we saw documents from people in power and authority, and their lickspittles, attacking Alan Bates on a personal level because engaging with the truth and the reality would expose them to be the charlatans they really are.
A huge amount of playing the man and not the ball.
One of the victims was just on the wireless, she is unrecompensed and having to work two jobs a day to deal with her debts from the scandal. She works in a supermarket in the mornings, and does an ice cream van afternoons and evenings.
She said she does not want those responsible to be imprisoned, but to be stripped of all their assets (money used to compensate the taxpayer) to the point where they were impoverished and needing benefits, and having to work two jobs a day like she and others have been forced to do.
Alan Cook former Managing Director of The Post Office from 2006 to 2010, during which time the PO prosecuted 200 Sub Postmasters & Sub Mistresses, said he didn't know that the PO carried out its own prosecutions.
Adam Crozier to give evidence later, that should be interesting.
Second, this is a great read https://davidallengreen.com/2024/01/how-the-legal-system-made-it-so-easy-for-the-post-office-to-destroy-the-lives-of-the-sub-postmasters-and-sub-postmistresses-and-how-the-legal-system-then-made-it-so-hard-for-them-to-obtain-justice/
In summary, the writer suggests that it was merely two strokes of luck rather than anything else that worked in the sub-postmasters' favour and also comes up with a shocking piece of news about how the Post Office went into full-on Trump mode and tried but failed to have the judge that was literally on their case recused.
Finally, on the assumption that the Post Office can be legally defined as a "Public Body" it seems to me that large numbers of co-conspirators in that organisation should be prosecuted for misfeasance in public office, the maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment. (I speculate that Cook and Crozier know this only to well and that is why they have gone all forgetful on us.)