Another thing - and sorry, this is just about the show - it’s not a huge deal or even to do with the story, but I just thought about it - did anyone else find Nadhim Zahawi playing himself a bit jarring? I just didn’t see the need for it and it felt like a crass bit of PR. Nobody else played themself, why just him?
Trying to show he’s the good guy…
I imagine the production company must have approached him and not the other way around and also his words are in the public record of the committee?
My guess was that given Zahawi's typically pugnacious behaviour in the select committee, they were worried that any actor trying to portray him would veer dangerously close to parody, and a brief cameo from the man himself was the lesser of two evils.
When watching I actually thought Zahawi had been spliced into the drama, I was not the only one. He's a bloody good actor, but then most politicians are.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life …..
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other….
I‘ve read in more than one article that the PO‘s prosecutors didn’t give the sub-postmasters much choice in this matter: “plead guilty to X and Y and we won’t prosecute you for A and B”!
The Inquiry resumes today, I'm sure we will hear 'I can't remember/recall' said numerous times, just as many of the politicians did at the Covid Inquiry last year. It's an easy way of answering difficult questions.
Some excellent posts here, what a collection of minds we have on CL. We may not agree politically, but most who get involved (not all) bring something to the table.
Picking up on Grapevine's - as always - well presented and informative post. Auditors, ah yes, once again following the adventures of the big five or six auditing firms in a certain publication, you will often see how they have been complicit in cooking the books for a number of huge corporate entities, large-ish fines ensue, then it's business as usual. Occasionally a token exec will be thrown to the lions - like the Tories do once in a while a-la Aitken or Archer - but usually nothing changes at the top. It's clear that it goes on all the time, they make such vast amounts of dosh that the fines are water off a duck's back, I am sure they build in a certain amount of budget for paying fines and it's trebles all round when they get to the end of the year and have got away with less than they budgeted for. The executive does his time, and is then quietly welcomed back into the club.
So few fraud cases make it to court, it is laughable. The rate is around the same as that for rape, i.e. < 5%. When they do the winners are the lawyers, as cases drag on for years and rack up massive bills. Probably why the Serious Fraud Office are so releuctant to prosecute (and they make some pretty serious errors themselves - understaffed and underpaid like most government institutions) as they are fighting entities with more money and often more political clout than they have...
The biggest problem is the type of people who end up running these big institutions, private or public. They are usually just very good at playing the game and many start 2/3 of the way up the ladder due to nepotism, place of education and contacts. Grapevine's man who came in and took all the glory for others work being a perfect example. They mostly get where they are by taking credit when it isn't always due and buck passing when their incompetence is exposed. The people who appoint them are just the same, so they are happy to let them have their moment in the sun, knowing theirs will come later somewhere along the line.
Great to read that Grapevine had his arse covering e-mail to prove he had the approval of those that mattered in releasing his report, but oh-so-typical that the biggest problem for those at the top was what it meant to them and their future, rather than the actual facts of the matter and the failures that it exposed. All the time we have that, and accept that, nothing will really change.
This is why it is all political. This could change, but the people who might bring that about are subject to character assasination and microscopic scrutiny by those invested in the status quo (and they are the ones with the power, influence and money), and those who continue to allow this to happen are given the highest jobs in the land.
It turns out that the Post Office ‘investigators’ were paid a financial bonus from money they squeezed out of the sub postpeople who can only be described as victims.
worth a look online, the Post Office is getting deeper and deeper into the mire, remarkable how much they knew or suspected years ago that Horizon was rubbish and/or being tampered with .. their 'investigator' Bradshaw is a complete chump
Some excellent posts here, what a collection of minds we have on CL. We may not agree politically, but most who get involved (not all) bring something to the table.
Picking up on Grapevine's - as always - well presented and informative post. Auditors, ah yes, once again following the adventures of the big five or six auditing firms in a certain publication, you will often see how they have been complicit in cooking the books for a number of huge corporate entities, large-ish fines ensue, then it's business as usual. Occasionally a token exec will be thrown to the lions - like the Tories do once in a while a-la Aitken or Archer - but usually nothing changes at the top. It's clear that it goes on all the time, they make such vast amounts of dosh that the fines are water off a duck's back, I am sure they build in a certain amount of budget for paying fines and it's trebles all round when they get to the end of the year and have got away with less than they budgeted for. The executive does his time, and is then quietly welcomed back into the club.
So few fraud cases make it to court, it is laughable. The rate is around the same as that for rape, i.e. < 5%. When they do the winners are the lawyers, as cases drag on for years and rack up massive bills. Probably why the Serious Fraud Office are so releuctant to prosecute (and they make some pretty serious errors themselves - understaffed and underpaid like most government institutions) as they are fighting entities with more money and often more political clout than they have...
The biggest problem is the type of people who end up running these big institutions, private or public. They are usually just very good at playing the game and many start 2/3 of the way up the ladder due to nepotism, place of education and contacts. Grapevine's man who came in and took all the glory for others work being a perfect example. They mostly get where they are by taking credit when it isn't always due and buck passing when their incompetence is exposed. The people who appoint them are just the same, so they are happy to let them have their moment in the sun, knowing theirs will come later somewhere along the line.
Great to read that Grapevine had his arse covering e-mail to prove he had the approval of those that mattered in releasing his report, but oh-so-typical that the biggest problem for those at the top was what it meant to them and their future, rather than the actual facts of the matter and the failures that it exposed. All the time we have that, and accept that, nothing will really change.
This is why it is all political. This could change, but the people who might bring that about are subject to character assasination and microscopic scrutiny by those invested in the status quo (and they are the ones with the power, influence and money), and those who continue to allow this to happen are given the highest jobs in the land.
As an ex civil servant I saw over a period of years how those at the very top were in some cases a disgrace and out for all they could get, whilst lesser civil servants were told it wasn't about money but service, I saw back covering when you would imagine the higher salaries should go with the risk and responsibility of the role. A good example, and I will be general but could be specific is the introduction of a new computer system. Those at the top and those delivering have a stake in it being a success. The users have too, but they are not important. If the system is crap and doesn't work properly, they may protest but nobody listens. The commisioners and deliverers claim it is a success whatever and pat each other on he back. Many of these issues slip through as they just make people's jobs harder and only come to light when they get exposed as in NHS computers and this Horizon one. If there was true honesty and accountability I would imagine the standard of these things would be better. Nobody knows how these things should work better than the experienced current users but they are rarely front and centre of these design processes. A good starting point would be what is good and bad about the current system whereas a completely different system is produced which requires far more time to learn and has new bugs and issues. Evolution would be better than revolution.
I am finding it hard to grasp that the senior Post Office executives, who must be so world beatingly good at what they do to justify the telephone number salaries and bonuses they get paid, could be so stupid to think that the strategy they have directed would never unravel. Hopefully an outcome will be a review and improvement, where necessary, of the laws regarding corporate responsibility.
Listening to the enquiry on 5live questioning an investigator it is clear that he is backsliding, blame shifting and lying, especially when looking at the case of a 16 year old counter clerk girl he questioned who got a six month suspended sentence. Watching the drama was upsetting enough, this is even worse.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life …..
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other….
I‘ve read in more than one article that the PO‘s prosecutors didn’t give the sub-postmasters much choice in this matter: “plead guilty to X and Y and we won’t prosecute you for A and B”!
This was highlighted in the ITV drama, where the investigators found no evidence of theft but illegally charged Jo Hamilton with it anyway, along with false accounting (which she did seem to be guilty of, but only to hide the false losses generated by Horizon). They then offered to drop the fictitious theft charges to secure a guilty plea on the false accounting. Scum!
I started viewing phase 4 hearings and I was amazed at the shameful incompetence, stupidity, wilful bad faith and self-denial of the few I have had time to view in full (some take place over several days). The most extraordinary was Elaine Cotter. Initially appearing just a rather confused little lady it rapidly descends into farce as she denies seeing or recalling every single email and signed Court Statement produced to the Inquiry. I surmise that as she has clearly committed perjury she is attempting to create a defence of insanity. Amnesia is a serious affliction that seems to afflict Post office management.
Amazingly, the head of the Post Office legal department Jarnail Singh, responsible for committing cases to prosecution had no experience in criminal law having spent his whole career in property conveyancing before joining the Post Office!!
If you want to understand how this scandal could have happened it's all here.
Given the level of public interest, rightly and understandably, in what's turned out to be a massive miscarriage of justice I'm a little fearful that we're not far off calls to remove the ability to prosecute from other agencies as a result (or further, disproportionate, legal hurdles introduced).
That really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I suggest you watch a few days proceedings and you might change your mind.
The removal of status as a Prosecuting Authority from the Post Office should be the first outcome of this Inquiry. Had the police, overseen by the CPS been involved, none of the cases would have gone to Court. I suggest you watch the testimonies of the investigators who prosecuted the cases. Over-promoted counter clerks with no proper legal training or supervision, ignorant of their statutory duties and the laws in relation to obtaining evidence or duty to pursue lines of investigation that might prove innocence. Overseen by lawyers who simply processed the investigators’ forms and relied on third party third rate legal firms to manage the technical Court processes.
Other agencies are probably in a slightly different position where the frauds are committed by mainly the public and not employees and often more clear cut. Evidence is probably easier to obtain if it exists and less likely to have as draconian consequencies for those found guilty.
Unlike the Post Office, others are not a profit making employer pursuing an employee where the Post Office is the victim, investigator gatherer of evidence and prosecutor. Conviction can lead to bankruptcy and ruin the life of a sub-postmaster forever so needs the highest level of due diligence in pursuing a correct prosecution..
It's obvious that the Post Office has had some absolutely fundamental flaws in its culture and approach to investigation and legal process. It cannot, clearly, be allowed to continue as was until such time as this is addressed.
But I'd caution against assuming this is equally commonplace in other organisations outside the police that also prosecute their own cases for fraud, whether internal or external. This isn't the time to be making knee jerk decisions impacting on agencies that have done nothing wrong and increase the risk the guilty go unpunished.
Re:the part in bold, you're simply wrong. The average police officer is, in my experience, clueless about fraud and financial crime in particular. I can well understand why those preparing these cases, initially, relied on the evidence of those running the IT system. It would have been the same with a CPS prosecution.
What happened afterwards, when it became apparent that there were serious issues with the integrity of the system and their subsequent failure to disclose this as something that assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution is very much where there's a diversion in a proper professional investigation and the dogs dinners that the Post Office was serving up.
Yesterday the prime minister stated that 150 million had been paid out. An absolute staggering amount when only 5 individuals have had their cases fully resolved. I wonder where all the money has gone, I haven't a clue, but I sort of understand where it hasn't found its ways to.
I am finding it hard to grasp that the senior Post Office executives, who must be so world beatingly good at what they do to justify the telephone number salaries and bonuses they get paid, could be so stupid to think that the strategy they have directed would never unravel. Hopefully an outcome will be a review and improvement, where necessary, of the laws regarding corporate responsibility.
Don't hold your breath Rick. Senior executives everywhere are just blagging it. They all cover each others arses, and when they balls up, they get a nice golden handshake, have a few weeks off and then pop up on the merry-go-round elsewhere, employed by people just like them...
My missus said this morning that when she joined the (then) Midland bank, the CEO decided to buy an American bank. It all went tits up and when he was given the push he got a £1 million pay off - a lot of money now, but a huge amount then. Apparently it was justified because it was in his contract. When the (now) HSBC bank decided to end final salary pensions, they just tore up the contracts with existing staff, because apparently they could... I am sure it's a bit more complicated than that, but you get the drift.
That bandwagon isn't going to stop anytime soon, I am afraid. They will throw a few bob at the PO victims, tell everyone who great they are and how they should all vote for them, and you know what, millions will fall for it.
Having been involved with many IT systems and roll outs, my experience is that bugs and errors are a normal part of system management. I have, however never been in position of not having access to support which was accountable to users to sort out reported transaction errors or erroneous reporting. My guess is that Horizon was poorly designed but probably no worse than scores of business critical systems currently being operated throughout the UK. This is why Fujitsu have tried to present the system as "robust" in the face of evidence of bugs and errors known to Fujitsu and the Post Office.
In the Inquiry Fujitsu tries to show it was a "normal" system - beset with the bugs and errors reported by users any IT system would experience.
In my view the crucial failure and criminal negligence, was less in the system integrity of a poorly designed system, rather the lack of transparency and control of the users to manage the impact of bugs and errors to resolve the resulting problem of non-balancing accounts. Users were oblivious to how their data was being altered and impacted by manual intervention of Fujitsu behind the scenes to get round the effect of bugs. In some IT environments, manual intervention may be the only way to correct an anomaly in advance of a software fix, so what Fujitsu were doing was not extraordinary, except it should only have happened transparently with the full knowledge and agreement of the user and implemented only after re-testing.
Sub-postmasters had no access to any data to prove their innocence in the face of an inept and corrupt investigation and prosecuting process - a perfect recipe for disaster.
I suspect Fujitsu will show they delivered a system that the Post Office accepted and were operating exactly as the Post Office contract required. The Post Office didn't have a clue of the impact on sub-postmasters of what they had delegated and must take the main blame and face the consequences.
Having been involved with many IT systems and roll outs, my experience is that bugs and errors are a normal part of system management. I have, however never been in position of not having access to support which was accountable to users to sort out reported transaction errors or erroneous reporting. My guess is that Horizon was poorly designed but probably no worse than scores of business critical systems currently being operated throughout the UK. This is why Fujitsu have tried to present the system as "robust" in the face of evidence of bugs and errors known to Fujitsu and the Post Office.
In the Inquiry Fujitsu tries to show it was a "normal" system - beset with the bugs and errors reported by users any IT system would experience.
In my view the crucial failure and criminal negligence, was less in the system integrity of a poorly designed system, rather the lack of transparency and control of the users to manage the impact of bugs and errors to resolve the resulting problem of non-balancing accounts. Users were oblivious to how their data was being altered and impacted by manual intervention of Fujitsu behind the scenes to get round the effect of bugs. In some IT environments, manual intervention may be the only way to correct an anomaly in advance of a software fix, so what Fujitsu were doing was not extraordinary, except it should only have happened transparently with the full knowledge and agreement of the user and implemented only after re-testing.
Sub-postmasters had no access to any data to prove their innocence in the face of an inept and corrupt investigation and prosecuting process - a perfect recipe for disaster.
I suspect Fujitsu will show they delivered a system that the Post Office accepted and were operating exactly as the Post Office contract required. The Post Office didn't have a clue of the impact on sub-postmasters of what they had delegated and must take the main blame and face the consequences.
You've hit the nail right on the head there @Dippenhall. That's what makes it all so disgusting.
Having been involved with many IT systems and roll outs, my experience is that bugs and errors are a normal part of system management. I have, however never been in position of not having access to support which was accountable to users to sort out reported transaction errors or erroneous reporting. My guess is that Horizon was poorly designed but probably no worse than scores of business critical systems currently being operated throughout the UK. This is why Fujitsu have tried to present the system as "robust" in the face of evidence of bugs and errors known to Fujitsu and the Post Office.
In the Inquiry Fujitsu tries to show it was a "normal" system - beset with the bugs and errors reported by users any IT system would experience.
In my view the crucial failure and criminal negligence, was less in the system integrity of a poorly designed system, rather the lack of transparency and control of the users to manage the impact of bugs and errors to resolve the resulting problem of non-balancing accounts. Users were oblivious to how their data was being altered and impacted by manual intervention of Fujitsu behind the scenes to get round the effect of bugs. In some IT environments, manual intervention may be the only way to correct an anomaly in advance of a software fix, so what Fujitsu were doing was not extraordinary, except it should only have happened transparently with the full knowledge and agreement of the user and implemented only after re-testing.
Sub-postmasters had no access to any data to prove their innocence in the face of an inept and corrupt investigation and prosecuting process - a perfect recipe for disaster.
I suspect Fujitsu will show they delivered a system that the Post Office accepted and were operating exactly as the Post Office contract required. The Post Office didn't have a clue of the impact on sub-postmasters of what they had delegated and must take the main blame and face the consequences.
I make you right. We have to remember the dramatisation did not (rightly) seek to fully account for what the technical explanation of the system errors & fixes are.
Its the subsequent relative 'cover up' by management that is alarming and the decision to pursue convictions which is hard for anyone to accept when complaints and system issues were seemingly in evidence.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
Not to defend them but there is a possibility that some actual fraud has also occurred in some cases. I don't think a blanket quashing of all convictions is necessarily the right thing to do but definitely an expedited and thorough review of all cases.
That is almost irrelevant. In any PROPER prosecution the inability to meet the evidential sufficiency test because of the dodgy computer system, would have meant the prosecution could not have proceeded. Even if it did, there would have been more than adequate "reasonable doubt" for any half sensible jury to throw out the case.
Bradshaw the Post Office 'investigator' (still employed by the PO) seems the type who would make an ideal Stasi/KGB time server .. a warning that if, God forbid, we ever become subject to a totalitarian regime there are plenty who would love a job in the secret police I missed the very start of his evidence so don't know his background and supposed suitability to be a Post Office copper, but 'investigator' is a complete misnomer, victim interrogator would be a more appropriate job description .. the lead counsel questioning him is named Julian Blake, a better name for a clever KC could not be dreamed up by any novelist
Bradshaw the Post Office 'investigator' (still employed by the PO) seems the type who would make an ideal Stasi/KGB time server .. a warning that if, God forbid, we ever become subject to a totalitarian regime there are plenty who would love a job in the secret police I missed the very start of his evidence so don't know his background and supposed suitability to be a Post Office copper, but 'investigator' is a complete misnomer, victim interrogator would be a more appropriate job description .. the lead counsel questioning him is named Julian Blake, a better name for a clever KC could not be dreamed up by any novelist
I hope he is feeling like his victims felt under his questioning.
I dont think this will be the last scandal. We rely too much on technology these days that something similar will happen again.
A classic but nowhere near as bad is, before xmas we were having a meal in a steak restaurant in Bath when one of the waitress's were turning away walk in diners as she said the place was fully booked.
When we took our seats we asked why they were turning people away when the place was empty. She said our systems say were full and can do nothing about it. They must have had 75% empty seats.
Bradshaw the Post Office 'investigator' (still employed by the PO) seems the type who would make an ideal Stasi/KGB time server .. a warning that if, God forbid, we ever become subject to a totalitarian regime there are plenty who would love a job in the secret police I missed the very start of his evidence so don't know his background and supposed suitability to be a Post Office copper, but 'investigator' is a complete misnomer, victim interrogator would be a more appropriate job description .. the lead counsel questioning him is named Julian Blake, a better name for a clever KC could not be dreamed up by any novelist
I hope he is feeling like his victims felt under his questioning.
I sadly doubt that, he was told he didn't have to answer questions that could incriminate himself. So unless he is stupid we may be disappointed.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
Not to defend them but there is a possibility that some actual fraud has also occurred in some cases. I don't think a blanket quashing of all convictions is necessarily the right thing to do but definitely an expedited and thorough review of all cases.
That is almost irrelevant. In any PROPER prosecution the inability to meet the evidential sufficiency test because of the dodgy computer system, would have meant the prosecution could not have proceeded. Even if it did, there would have been more than adequate "reasonable doubt" for any half sensible jury to throw out the case.
That may be true but I am more than a little nervous about any government, but particularly this government, giving themselves the ability to legislate guilt and innocence.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
Not to defend them but there is a possibility that some actual fraud has also occurred in some cases. I don't think a blanket quashing of all convictions is necessarily the right thing to do but definitely an expedited and thorough review of all cases.
That is almost irrelevant. In any PROPER prosecution the inability to meet the evidential sufficiency test because of the dodgy computer system, would have meant the prosecution could not have proceeded. Even if it did, there would have been more than adequate "reasonable doubt" for any half sensible jury to throw out the case.
That may be true but I am more than a little nervous about any government, but particularly this government, giving themselves the ability to legislate guilt and innocence.
Comments
Picking up on Grapevine's - as always - well presented and informative post. Auditors, ah yes, once again following the adventures of the big five or six auditing firms in a certain publication, you will often see how they have been complicit in cooking the books for a number of huge corporate entities, large-ish fines ensue, then it's business as usual. Occasionally a token exec will be thrown to the lions - like the Tories do once in a while a-la Aitken or Archer - but usually nothing changes at the top. It's clear that it goes on all the time, they make such vast amounts of dosh that the fines are water off a duck's back, I am sure they build in a certain amount of budget for paying fines and it's trebles all round when they get to the end of the year and have got away with less than they budgeted for. The executive does his time, and is then quietly welcomed back into the club.
So few fraud cases make it to court, it is laughable. The rate is around the same as that for rape, i.e. < 5%. When they do the winners are the lawyers, as cases drag on for years and rack up massive bills. Probably why the Serious Fraud Office are so releuctant to prosecute (and they make some pretty serious errors themselves - understaffed and underpaid like most government institutions) as they are fighting entities with more money and often more political clout than they have...
The biggest problem is the type of people who end up running these big institutions, private or public. They are usually just very good at playing the game and many start 2/3 of the way up the ladder due to nepotism, place of education and contacts. Grapevine's man who came in and took all the glory for others work being a perfect example. They mostly get where they are by taking credit when it isn't always due and buck passing when their incompetence is exposed. The people who appoint them are just the same, so they are happy to let them have their moment in the sun, knowing theirs will come later somewhere along the line.
Great to read that Grapevine had his arse covering e-mail to prove he had the approval of those that mattered in releasing his report, but oh-so-typical that the biggest problem for those at the top was what it meant to them and their future, rather than the actual facts of the matter and the failures that it exposed. All the time we have that, and accept that, nothing will really change.
This is why it is all political. This could change, but the people who might bring that about are subject to character assasination and microscopic scrutiny by those invested in the status quo (and they are the ones with the power, influence and money), and those who continue to allow this to happen are given the highest jobs in the land.
Hopefully an outcome will be a review and improvement, where necessary, of the laws regarding corporate responsibility.
Watching the drama was upsetting enough, this is even worse.
But I'd caution against assuming this is equally commonplace in other organisations outside the police that also prosecute their own cases for fraud, whether internal or external. This isn't the time to be making knee jerk decisions impacting on agencies that have done nothing wrong and increase the risk the guilty go unpunished.
Re:the part in bold, you're simply wrong. The average police officer is, in my experience, clueless about fraud and financial crime in particular. I can well understand why those preparing these cases, initially, relied on the evidence of those running the IT system. It would have been the same with a CPS prosecution.
What happened afterwards, when it became apparent that there were serious issues with the integrity of the system and their subsequent failure to disclose this as something that assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution is very much where there's a diversion in a proper professional investigation and the dogs dinners that the Post Office was serving up.
My missus said this morning that when she joined the (then) Midland bank, the CEO decided to buy an American bank. It all went tits up and when he was given the push he got a £1 million pay off - a lot of money now, but a huge amount then. Apparently it was justified because it was in his contract. When the (now) HSBC bank decided to end final salary pensions, they just tore up the contracts with existing staff, because apparently they could... I am sure it's a bit more complicated than that, but you get the drift.
That bandwagon isn't going to stop anytime soon, I am afraid. They will throw a few bob at the PO victims, tell everyone who great they are and how they should all vote for them, and you know what, millions will fall for it.
In the Inquiry Fujitsu tries to show it was a "normal" system - beset with the bugs and errors reported by users any IT system would experience.
In my view the crucial failure and criminal negligence, was less in the system integrity of a poorly designed system, rather the lack of transparency and control of the users to manage the impact of bugs and errors to resolve the resulting problem of non-balancing accounts. Users were oblivious to how their data was being altered and impacted by manual intervention of Fujitsu behind the scenes to get round the effect of bugs. In some IT environments, manual intervention may be the only way to correct an anomaly in advance of a software fix, so what Fujitsu were doing was not extraordinary, except it should only have happened transparently with the full knowledge and agreement of the user and implemented only after re-testing.
Sub-postmasters had no access to any data to prove their innocence in the face of an inept and corrupt investigation and prosecuting process - a perfect recipe for disaster.
I suspect Fujitsu will show they delivered a system that the Post Office accepted and were operating exactly as the Post Office contract required. The Post Office didn't have a clue of the impact on sub-postmasters of what they had delegated and must take the main blame and face the consequences.
You've hit the nail right on the head there @Dippenhall. That's what makes it all so disgusting.
Its the subsequent relative 'cover up' by management that is alarming and the decision to pursue convictions which is hard for anyone to accept when complaints and system issues were seemingly in evidence.
I missed the very start of his evidence so don't know his background and supposed suitability to be a Post Office copper, but 'investigator' is a complete misnomer, victim interrogator would be a more appropriate job description .. the lead counsel questioning him is named Julian Blake, a better name for a clever KC could not be dreamed up by any novelist
A classic but nowhere near as bad is, before xmas we were having a meal in a steak restaurant in Bath when one of the waitress's were turning away walk in diners as she said the place was fully booked.
When we took our seats we asked why they were turning people away when the place was empty. She said our systems say were full and can do nothing about it. They must have had 75% empty seats.
Some things go beyond rules and systems, some things are about the mindset of people, they are indeed about ethics and personal morality.
Makes me fear for where we are in our collective consciousness, or maybe something as humble as common sense isn’t that common anymore.
100% agree.