The Post Office Inquiry..... in The AnswerBank: News

Is there any valid comparison of SPM being convicted of fraud pre & post the introduction of Horizon?

Hi Dave bro - am I allowed to comment - yes, it went up and they thought 'Ha! we are getting all the thieves now!"

not pleaded - there are days of evidence... BUT - the fujitsu ARQs ( requests ) went up and the yearly charge became substantial. So they were using Fuji data and having to pay

and then there was the long term saga of Gareth jenkins - where he overblew the reliability of Horizon ( there are no bugs) and then let the cat out of the bag ( everyone know there are)

oopsie ! Those who predicted this turn around wd cost the P O up to a billion..... left. Others went mad

Peter Pedant

I think some of them are giving evidence and apologising through gritted teeth.

there is large scale evidence of document destruction - and they dont want to be faced with a surprise " here is an email you wrote in 2016, and this means YOU..."

Paula Vennells was faced with a memo with SL who left under a cloud, " SL screamed and shouted and said I was undermining her, and that the only way out was to leave...."

and was cross examined on it. Clearly goes against " I was the unluckiest CFO in the UK. No one told me anything and my minions conspired.... and I knew nothing, I knew nothing..." and shows her more of a scheming minx

New Judge

"Is there any valid comparison of SPM being convicted of fraud pre & post the introduction of Horizon?"

Yes there are , dave.

Between 1987 and 1995 there were a total of 17 prosecutions against SPMs, resulting in 13 convictions. The highest number of convictions in any one year was three; in two of those years there were no convictions at all.

The year 1996 saw the Horizon "pilot". In that year there were 10 prosecutions resulting in 10 convictions.

Horizon was rolled out during 1997 and 1998. In those two years there were, respectively, 25 prosecutions resulting in 22 convictions and 44 prosecutions resulting in 41 convictions.

Between 1999 and 2013 the Post Office secured 736 convictions against SPMs using Horizon-based evidence. That's almost 50 a year.

I've said this on here before, but what I find incredible about this absolute scandal is that nobody - nobody at all - seemed willing to raise an eyebrow when these large numbers of prosecutions began. Even in its "pilot" year (when you would think that when such large discrepancies were identified, somebody might have ordered a "drains up") the Post Office saw fit to prosecute almost as many people as it had in the previous five years. Even before its full roll out had been completed, 79 people had been prosecuted using Horizon evidence - almost five times as many as in the previous nine years.

But nobody had thought to ask one simple question - "Why is it that large numbers of SPMs - people of previously impeccable character (a requirement before they are granted an SPM contract) - have suddenly decided to stick their fingers in the till, coinciding, precisely, with the roll out of a new computer system?"

It seems incredible to me that this simple question was not raised. I doubt that this inquiry will get the bottom of that question because I imagine that most of the players who could and should have asked it have long since sailed off into the sunset with their salaries and bonuses funded by the sums the Post Office unlawfully forced their contractors to pay.

douglas9401

"I've said this on here before, but what I find incredible about this absolute scandal is that nobody - nobody at all - seemed willing to raise an eyebrow when these large numbers of prosecutions began."

Well...nobody except Private Eye, pricker of the pompous and fearless pursuer of truth in spite of closed ranks.

naomi doesn't rate it I've heard, they have an agenda or summat.

New Judge

"Well...nobody except Private Eye, pricker of the pompous and fearless pursuer of truth in spite of closed ranks."

Indeed Duggie. I've been following it in The Eye since day one.

What I meant was nobody in the Post Office or Fujitsu, who were supposed to be overseeing the Horizon project, asked the pertinent questions.

miser

Oh, I think they asked the pertinent questiones, didn't like the answers and the rest is history.

10ClarionSt

Question Author

Thanks for the replies folks. All interesting stuff. I still think there are people who consider lots of SPM's to be guilty. It's difficult to see how or where there will be any prosecutions of senior management. Nobody new nuffink yer warship.

Peter Pedant

Nobody new nuffink yer warship.

That was the watch word of the Investigation Team ( Liars Bradshaw, Scott and a few others) - Bradshaw ( ex police) insisted they were guilty because they pleaded guilty. Scott who cdnt remember giving the shredding order he has given ( oops). was also ex police and professed doubt or ignorance of PACE rules. (*)

They morphed from searching out punters who had filched stamps to recovery of large amounts of lu-lu from the SPMs and no one noticed. ( bonus related)

Peter Pedant

Scott was faced with an incriminating memo which he denied writing or even owning

and when asked if it was his, replied: did I sign it ?

Jason Beer 's bug eyes went even buggier

Peter Pedant

credo quia incerdibilis

the allegations - computer is crap - they know and deny it - are truly incredz.

Anne C ( Lee Castleton) was upset / disturbed that having demolished the cause of Castleton's losses as the Riposte bug, everyone seemed to conclude that the program was bugless - and this bug-free fantasy was carried on for 15 y

andy-hughes

New Judge - //

"Is there any valid comparison of SPM being convicted of fraud pre & post the introduction of Horizon?"

Yes there are , dave.

Between 1987 and 1995 there were a total of 17 prosecutions against SPMs, resulting in 13 convictions. The highest number of convictions in any one year was three; in two of those years there were no convictions at all.

The year 1996 saw the Horizon "pilot". In that year there were 10 prosecutions resulting in 10 convictions.

Horizon was rolled out during 1997 and 1998. In those two years there were, respectively, 25 prosecutions resulting in 22 convictions and 44 prosecutions resulting in 41 convictions.

Between 1999 and 2013 the Post Office secured 736 convictions against SPMs using Horizon-based evidence. That's almost 50 a year.

I've said this on here before, but what I find incredible about this absolute scandal is that nobody - nobody at all - seemed willing to raise an eyebrow when these large numbers of prosecutions began. Even in its "pilot" year (when you would think that when such large discrepancies were identified, somebody might have ordered a "drains up") the Post Office saw fit to prosecute almost as many people as it had in the previous five years. Even before its full roll out had been completed, 79 people had been prosecuted using Horizon evidence - almost five times as many as in the previous nine years.

But nobody had thought to ask one simple question - "Why is it that large numbers of SPMs - people of previously impeccable character (a requirement before they are granted an SPM contract) - have suddenly decided to stick their fingers in the till, coinciding, precisely, with the roll out of a new computer system?"

It seems incredible to me that this simple question was not raised. I doubt that this inquiry will get the bottom of that question because I imagine that most of the players who could and should have asked it have long since sailed off into the sunset with their salaries and bonuses funded by the sums the Post Office unlawfully forced their contractors to pay. //

As always, NJ sums up the entire horror of the situation in succinct terms.

It is baffling that, given the choice between accepting sudden fraud on a massive scale simultaniously from previously credile employees, and the possibility that a new computer system may just be faulty, the suits went for their employees, and hounded them on a level last seen in Nazi Germany.

The sheer immorality of the people involved, couple with, as mentioned, the likelyhood that they wil simply get away with it, is a stain on this country as a whole, that we allow people to behave this way, and then take large pay offs to walk away and keep quiet.

And that we elect a government whose laws are lax enough to allow this disgrace to happen, and say nothing meaningful about it, much less stop it happening again.

Peter Pedant

The idea was that their hands had always been in the till and "now we are catching them".

The loss was never chased and that has always puzzled me. The investigating team had its quota of ex policeman and once they got to apoint of a reasonable prospect of a conviction, they stopped looking.

bookbinder

I haven't seen much mention of Fujitsu amongst all the talk. Surely they will have to say something relevant?

The Post Office Inquiry.....

Answers