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to look at all the historical documents and refresh his memory.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.
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to look at all the historical documents and refresh his memory.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.
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?
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time to look at all the historical documents and refresh his memory.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
A remarkable testimony from Mr Grant, former Post Office Investigation Manager, attempting without much success to distance himself from the scandal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Senior managers have the responsibility to monitor and validate system reliability, and make statistics of reliability known to investigation
teams.
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
On 25 Jan 2024 at 13:56:27 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
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?
Clearly because the police would have asked awkward questions, perhaps even investigated Horizon's reliability themselves.
On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 16:37:27 UTC, GB wrote:
On 24/01/2024 16:30, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 24/01/2024 16:09, GB wrote:
They are both legitimate aims, but there is a conflict, so one or other
Both can and should be legitimate aims.
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 dutyDo you have a cite for that, please?
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.
Unlikely given the terminology.
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.
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.
The report is based on 'what went wrong/ how can the problem be prevented'.
Not 'who is to blame'
Flop
On 25/01/2024 11:28, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 16:37:27 UTC, GB wrote:
On 24/01/2024 16:30, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 24/01/2024 16:09, GB wrote:
They are both legitimate aims, but there is a conflict, so one or other
Both can and should be legitimate aims.
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 dutyDo you have a cite for that, please?
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.
Unlikely given the terminology.
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
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. 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?
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.
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'
On 16:30 24 Jan 2024, The Todal said:
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. 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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
On 25/01/2024 19:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 at 18:01:29 GMT, "Philip Hole" <news@theholefamily.org> wrote:
On 25/01/2024 11:28, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
Unlikely given the terminology.
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
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.
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.
Feigning ignorance seems to be off the table.
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
On 26/01/2024 11:46, GB wrote:
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
Some of the guiding minds behind this scandal were not stupid.
The foot soldiers may well have been.
I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the original prosecutions
were mainly down to stupidity.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@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 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 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
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.
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.
On 26/01/2024 16:05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:46, GB wrote:
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
Some of the guiding minds behind this scandal were not stupid.
I have issues with the attempts to cover this up, but I think the
original prosecutions were mainly down to stupidity.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:up2sik$3cdts$1@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
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 ?
On 27 Jan 2024 at 14:20:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@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
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 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.
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.
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.
On 28/01/2024 07:45, Simon Parker wrote:snip
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.
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."
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.
On 25/01/2024 01:39 pm, Fredxx wrote:
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.
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.
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)
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.
On 27/01/2024 15:35, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2024 01:39 pm, Fredxx wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 expect "I am not a technical person" to feature widely in the defence statements of the various guiding minds behind this PO conspiracy.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
From the current "Private Eye" no 1616; "Post Production" tucked awayon p.19 . Paraphrased.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@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 awayon p.19 . Paraphrased.
In June 2015 BBC Panorama had an expos 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
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. 🙂
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:upor0f$3qb2i$1@dont-email.me...
"GB" <NOTsomeone@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 awayon 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
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/
On 04/02/2024 20:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:upor0f$3qb2i$1@dont-email.me...
"GB" <NOTsomeone@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
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
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/
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.
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."
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
"GB" <NOTsomeone@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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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. WhenJust a second. That can't be right! The inspectors are accusing these
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? >>>
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:06:45 |
| Calls: | 6,711 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,920 |
| Posted today: | 1 |