• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Largest ever miscarriage of justice?

Been listening to some episodes of the BBC podcast, The Great Post Office Trial.

I can’t imagine how sick the subpostmasters must be of hearing “Horizon is robust”. POL used that word over and over.


Also, the high-ups at POL were like computers themselves in defending the POL brand and Horizon.

That humans could defend arbitrary and inanimate objects to the extent of destroying people’s lives and livelihoods is astounding.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks for all that!

I see the blog has moved to https://www.postofficescandal.uk/ and is being updated a lot recently.

I will be ordering Wallis’ book! This story has really captured my imagination.

Eta: the ITV series and documentary both feature the Computer Weekly article, but not Private Eye, which I find curious. The documentary said Computer Weekly waited a year before publishing, due to fear of legal repercussions.
Click to expand...
CW is a small, specialised publication and cautious about the legal risks.

Filippo Lippi said:
Private Eye can be a bit divisive, possibly, criticises the advertising industry regularly, and the editor is strongly associated with the BBC, all reasons why ITV might not want to give it due credit in the drama. Or that part may have been cut for dramatic reasons
Click to expand...
This. ITV is not friendly towards the Eye. Very little of the UK media is.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Chairman of Post Office also headed courts service during postmasters’ appeals
Tim Parker accused of conflict of interest over role as chairman of His Majesty Courts and Tribunal Service while leading the Post Office.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/14/post-office-tim-parker-chairman-courts-horizon-scandal/
Click to expand...

I can’t read the paywalled article, but I hope something has come of this.

Eta: found this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68691257

“An internal draft report obtained by the BBC reveals the Post Office knew in 2017 that the Horizon programme could be flawed.
The draft report refers to findings being discussed with "Post Office management" and investigators at the time.

[…]

“The draft report, which was commissioned by the Post Office in March 2016 and compiled by accountancy firm Deloitte, was not disclosed during the court case.
Lawyers for Tim Parker, who was chair of the Post Office at the time, told the BBC the Post Office's legal team liaised with Deloitte about the report and were responsible for handling, distributing and disclosing it.
He said the Post Office's lawyers were also involved in the "strategy and day to day management of the litigation".
This raises questions as to whether Post Office lawyers met their responsibilities to not mislead the court.“

What was Parker doing while this was happening? Counting his bonuses?
 
Last edited:
Watched the whole series; very compelling story and great acting. I'm left with the "Where did the money go?" question. And the "How much money goes through a small post office even in the 2000s?"
 
Brainster said:
Watched the whole series; very compelling story and great acting. I'm left with the "Where did the money go?" question. And the "How much money goes through a small post office even in the 2000s?"
Click to expand...
1. It's entirely possible that the "missing" money never existed.
2. Quite a lot. They handled cash payments for state benefits and acted as a bank, a service that was important, especially for the elderly and less mobile.
 
Brainster said:
Watched the whole series; very compelling story and great acting. I'm left with the "Where did the money go?" question. And the "How much money goes through a small post office even in the 2000s?"
Click to expand...

Literally post office profits. There was never any money missing in these cases, and many of the sub postmasters were adding their own money to make up for the “loss”, so it was pure profit for the PO.
 
Brainster said:
Watched the whole series; very compelling story and great acting. I'm left with the "Where did the money go?" question. And the "How much money goes through a small post office even in the 2000s?"
Click to expand...

The money would have gone into an account designed to hold unattributable revenue (there's a name for such an account, but I forget what it is). Then after a period of time during which it could not be accounted for, it would have been recognised as profit. If you could prove intent, it would unquestionably have been against criminal law. It's extortion.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks for all that!

I see the blog has moved to https://www.postofficescandal.uk/ and is being updated a lot recently.

I will be ordering Wallis’ book! This story has really captured my imagination.

Eta: the ITV series and documentary both feature the Computer Weekly article, but not Private Eye, which I find curious. The documentary said Computer Weekly waited a year before publishing, due to fear of legal repercussions.
Click to expand...

Mainstream media in the UK do their level best to never credit the Eye for anything, even when lifting Eye articles word for word. This is at least partly due to the fact that the Eye goes after all of mainstream media.
 
Post Office 'saw postmasters as enemies'

Christ on a bike!!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c97zpq95npmo

"On Thursday, the long running inquiry into the scandal was shown the draft report by Ron Warmington of accountancy firm Second Sight which raised serious concerns about Post Office investigations into sub-postmasters.

It said that investigators "often appear to have paid scant attention" to sub-postmasters who told them that they were innocent of fraud, or pointed out anomalies in transactions.

"They [investigators] seem to have shown little or no willingness to establish the underlying root cause of any given shortfall," the report said.

This seemed to stem from a desire to "get the money back" from the sub-postmasters, "knowing that a false accounting convictions will provide a relatively inexpensive pathway to that goal", it said.

"The overwhelming impression gained from reviewing the transcripts of investigative interviews is that the sub-postmaster was viewed as an enemy of the business," the report added."

The investigations team seemed to presume that sub-postmasters were automatically guilty, rather than "seeking the truth", the report said.​

Like a really bad, corrupt, 1960s cop, the PO reached the conclusion "guilty" without looking at any of the evidence, or any attempt to actually investigate.
 
Last edited:
A lawyer who worked for a defence firm that took on PO prosecutions, is demolished for his incompetence and admits to failing to report an employee of Fujitsu who he realised had lied in court.

https://twitter.com/stugoo17/status/1786131982432219341

The prosecuting lawyers were as bad as, if not worse than, the Post Office investigators.
 
Nessie said:
A lawyer who worked for a defence firm that took on PO prosecutions, is demolished for his incompetence and admits to failing to report an employee of Fujitsu who he realised had lied in court.

https://twitter.com/stugoo17/status/1786131982432219341

The prosecuting lawyers were as bad as, if not worse than, the Post Office investigators.
Click to expand...

That'd be Gareth Jenkins. How come he hasn't been charged with perjury!
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-68947170

"The former head of Scotland’s prosecution service has told BBC News “we’re all sorry” about any miscarriages of justice in relation to the Post Office scandal.
Lord Mulholland was the Lord Advocate between 2011 and 2016."

That means Frank Mulholland was LA when his office issued a code of practice requiring all investigating authorities to disclose all evidence, in particular exculpatory evidence. He is another lawyer who has disgraced himself and his profession.
 
FFS.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/p...with-judge-to-stop-disclosure/5119593.article




Lawyers for the Post Office arranged a secret meeting with a judge to prevent disclosure to defence solicitors in a criminal trial, the Post Office Inquiry heard yesterday. Solicitor Martin Smith and his barrister colleague Simon Clarke met the judge at Birmingham Crown Court in 2013 on the eve of a trial of a sub-postmaster accused of theft.
Click to expand...


The prosecuting lawyers applied for public interest immunity on the report, successfully persuading the judge that the defence solicitors should not be made aware of it.
Click to expand...
 
It is in the public's interest that Horizon's faults were disclosed and innocent people not convicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom