So, this post office palaver then

I think it's hilarious that the government only acted after that documentary was made. Obviously late is better than never, but this mode of governance by media we seem to be subject to is A: now strikingly obvious and B: generally a negative thing - in this case it's very much so a broken clock being right twice a day.
 

Absolutely shocking. The public enquiry needs to be stopped and the police allowed to investigate at this point.

Why was this even happening? Investigators found that one sub-postmasters account had approximately £500k worth of unauthorised remote transactions made to their balance (hundreds were made). At this stage there's still no indication actual money was stolen, but why was this being done and who was doing it at Fujitsu?
 
As I said in the SC thread, at this point criminal charges are due for a lot of executives for lying to the court, and every penny that was spent by the subpostmasters in at least the later legal actions should be reimbursed by the post office with generous interest.

At the very least none of the post office executives involved should ever be allowed to hold any senior position in any company, as they've shown their either criminally incompetent, or just criminal in their actions.
 
Jokester said:

Absolutely shocking. The public enquiry needs to be stopped and the police allowed to investigate at this point.

Why was this even happening? Investigators found that one sub-postmasters account had approximately £500k worth of unauthorised remote transactions made to their balance (hundreds were made). At this stage there's still no indication actual money was stolen, but why was this being done and who was doing it at Fujitsu?
Click to expand...
I wonder if they had some sort of training interface where they could make what they thought were Mickey Mouse transactions but it was actually happening to real systems.
 
Jokester said:
Absolutely shocking. The public enquiry needs to be stopped and the police allowed to investigate at this point.

Why was this even happening? Investigators found that one sub-postmasters account had approximately £500k worth of unauthorised remote transactions made to their balance (hundreds were made). At this stage there's still no indication actual money was stolen, but why was this being done and who was doing it at Fujitsu?
Click to expand...

I think there was a known issue with some of the overnight processes so presumably they tried to manually intervene/correct it but in doing so also caused errors.

Like I've only watched bits of the inquiry but on one of the videos the KC doing the questioning pointed to an issue in training where some faulty balance appeared and some testimony from someone who ended up representing himself that he'd signed off on figures being accurate (which was used to prosecute him) because he had to in order to open his Post Office that day but had also logged calls at the help center to point out the body balances. And there's been evidence indicating some known issue there so presumably some of the "missing" funds is the result of the issue itself and some is the result of lots of manual corrections leading to errors being made there too.
 
jpaul said:
? maybe some prosecution lawyers who get prosecuted/disbarred for complicity in suppressing evidence/perverting.
Click to expand...
It looks like the actual "prosecution" lawyers as in those who appeared in court were very carefully and systematically not given this evidence as the barristers who present the cases to the court have a very high degree of legal responsibility to the court and whilst they would have been "working for" the post office, they "work" for the court and upholding the principles of the court/justice as their primary responsibility. To put it another way a barrister is very unlikely to actively lie for their client as they know the penalties for doing so especially when it puts someone in prison basically starts with losing their livelihood and potentially ends up with them in jail for perverting the course of justice (possibly with a whole bunch of other charges as well).
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
It looks like lawyers have lied? Naaah. They'd never do that.
Click to expand...
The lawyers, or rather barristers who appeared in court would care a little too much about their careers and the chance of jail for lying to the court, not worth it for what they get paid for a few jobs (IIRC at least one has already come out and stated that what he gave to the court was all he was told existed and he'd specifically checked).

I can't speak for the lawyers employed in house by the post office who would have been under pressure to keep their long term jobs.

The management on the other hand, definitely, especially if they thought they could get away with claiming they didn't know the law and "didn't think to ask for specific advice" about the legal requirements to turn over all the documentation including the drafts. Which is how they usually weasel out of it, they know full well what the requirements are but by claiming they were not told they can feign ignorance and get just enough uncertainty/deniability to get away with it.
 
Last edited:
It would be unusual for the legal team dealing with the prosecution to have any of this information regarding the convictions being unsafe. It is the kind of issue that would mean solicitors and barristers get their license removed and there will not be many willing to take such a risk. You get paid for your time, so the vast majority would walk away as it is just not worth it.

The heads of in house legal advice for the PO is slightly different though as your pay/position/promotion prospects are linked entirely to pleasing those in high paid positions. However, this role is usually removed from individual court proceedings. These reports are unlikely to be widely circulated outside of executive management.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
It looks like lawyers have lied? Naaah. They'd never do that.
Click to expand...

Exactly - the main lawyer for the post office was clearly told by the forensic accountants about the remote access issue and advised to pass it on to the CEO and has either not done so and covered that aspect up herself or has just decided to collude with the CEO to both cover it up.

Werewolf said:
The lawyers, or rather barristers who appeared in court would care a little too much about their careers and the chance of jail for lying to the court, not worth it for what they get paid for a few jobs
Click to expand...

I think they get paid plenty and you're rather too trusting there.

richardmoorhead.substack.com

The sorry tale of Warwick Tatford

A key question for the Post Office Inquiry is the fairness of private prosecutions conducted by the Post Office and the independent Bar on its behalf. Hear why one lawyer had to apologise twice.
richardmoorhead.substack.com richardmoorhead.substack.com
There’s a suggestion that Tatford may have had a hand in the strategy of examining a limited set of records, and he cross-examines Seema Misra on an important point in the trial which would have been resolved in her favour by proper disclosure. That disclosure was not made.

But the coup de grace is Mr Tatford's comments on Jenkins’ main draft ‘expert’ statement.

He asks for stronger wording on supportive points. He asks for important concessions to be qualified or challenges them directly as unsubstantiated (Jenkins’ draft includes an acceptance of the existence or possibility of errors and says in terms that some evidence is not consistent with guilt that Mr Tatford plainly sees as potentially damaging).

Throughout these comments, I would say there are attempts to influence both the phrasing and substance of the evidence to be given by Jenkins.

Counsel to the enquiry asked him, “is what we see here prosecution counsel seeking to harden up his expert?” And Mr Tatford tries to justify himself as raising legitimate points, merely inviting further consideration and “merely clarifying details to make sure that Mr Jenkins really meant what he said.”
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to see Gareth Jenkin's evidence to the inquiry, I wonder if what he has to say about this matter will result in the Bar Standards Board taking action.
 
Mason- said:
I wonder if they had some sort of training interface where they could make what they thought were Mickey Mouse transactions but it was actually happening to real systems.
Click to expand...
Not a chance, Fujitsu were trying to plug holes in a leaky roof, ad-hoc. It sounds like they simply had super access (admins rights, call it what you will) to every Post Master account in the UK. I just don’t see it being any other way. But how many accounts can they sort out manually each day/night when you have hundreds of thousands. Eventually you’re going to miss some and the rest, as they say, is history.
 
Minusorange said:
[...]
The leaks keep coming
Click to expand...

Ah, that's an interesting update - important specifically in that they've admitted the CEO has been briefed as the external accountants have advised.

The silly thing is that this isn't even an insider leak per se, rather these accountants are a third party and those post office employees know they're talking to a third party and seem to have still incriminated themselves on the secret recording.

Would be very interesting if an insider had recorded stuff too - if they're talking like that to people from an external what would they have been admitting to internally?
 
dowie said:
Ah, that's an interesting update - important specifically in that they've admitted the CEO has been briefed as the external accountants have advised.

The silly thing is that this isn't even an insider leak per se, rather these accountants are a third party and those post office employees know they're talking to a third party and seem to have still incriminated themselves on the secret recording.

Would be very interesting if an insider had recorded stuff too - if they're talking like that to people from an external what would they have been admitting to internally?
Click to expand...
There needs to be a criminal investigation with all the info that has come out, start treating these liars the way they treated the post masters knowing full well they were likely innocent
 
Minusorange said:
There needs to be a criminal investigation with all the info that has come out, start treating these liars the way they treated the post masters knowing full well they were likely innocent
Click to expand...

I mentioned earlier in the thread to someone skeptical that I think the CEO could be done for Contempt of Parliament even if the police were too inept to get her but I think given what has emerged since then she surely will be charged by the police too.
 
dowie said:
I mentioned earlier in the thread to someone skeptical that I think the CEO could be done for Contempt of Parliament even if the police were too inept to get her but I think given what has emerged since then she surely will be charged by the police too.
Click to expand...

I was literally saying the other day "I can see someone going to prison for this" given what's come out recently., especially around experts being "encouraged" to change their statemtns. I can't imagine how those families feel who have lost loved ones to suicide over this, or those that have died naturally with something of a cloud hanging over them. It's shocking, and it could have happened to any one of us.
 
I often discuss this with my Mum when I go round for lunch. We both think people responsible for allowing this to unfold should be in prison for what they did. My Mum thinks that those most responsible however will avoid jail by virtue of being able to afford very good lawyers and have much better legal advice than the sub-postmasters they treated disgustingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom