Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
LimmerickLad said:
IMO - "(2) in-house ability to prosecute - losing the necessary objectivity" was a major factor above all, as they just felt they had all the power...and at that time in fact, they did!
AFAIK, they somehow still have that power.Not sure I have seen it stripped?
Clearly they should NO LONGER have that power, and indeed I hope and pray that the Police take action against those who have so clearly shown themselves to have been complicit in ruining so many lives.
I still feel there might only be one scapegoat, which makes me fume: it is one thing to suggest that it is a culture issue, or that they were only assuming people above knew and did the right thing, but so many SPMs (& their families) lives were utterly ruined by the actions of so many individuals, they really do need holding to account: in many cases it feels that jail is too good for them: SPMs have died or taken their own lives over this.
Any member of a profession has standards to comply with and knows of them, the POL lawyers ignored them.
In a 42 year career I have had a few battles over them as saying “no I won’t do that” and why probably affected my career progression (especially at Fujitsu).
I saw mention of call centre scripts a few pages ago, someone should ask Fujitsu who ran the helplines. One call centre was in the office Solihull office.
In a 42 year career I have had a few battles over them as saying “no I won’t do that” and why probably affected my career progression (especially at Fujitsu).
I saw mention of call centre scripts a few pages ago, someone should ask Fujitsu who ran the helplines. One call centre was in the office Solihull office.
Sorry if I've missed it, but has there ever been an explanation of why the software was so bad that Fujitsu had to go in a chance the accounts fairly regularly? On the face of it all it had to do was add up the amount of cash going in and out of the till (ok I know there's more to it than that) but that shouldn't be hard.... Otherwise how do the supermarkets manage?
simon_harris said:
You can't have worked in IT and with very senior people then! I've known PA's that had multiple board directors login details, banking passwords, PINs to debit/credit cards.
I've walked into CSR offices and found passwords taped to the front of monitors, IT offices that had passwords written up on whiteboards. people are generally s
t when it comes to passwords.
^This and not just senior people in my experience! I'm retired now so don't know if it's different but when I was working you could walk into most offices at most work locations and you'd find someone's login credentials written down somewhere, often, as cited, post it notes or bits of paper taped to monitors, on white boards, or in an unlocked top drawer. The only place I never saw it, reassuringly, was a defence contractor where such things were treated immensely seriously.I've walked into CSR offices and found passwords taped to the front of monitors, IT offices that had passwords written up on whiteboards. people are generally s
t when it comes to passwords.cookie1600 said:
I'm almost feeling that this mornings events with Jarnail Singh have hit the gold vein of corporate responsibility and culpability in the POL Horizon scandal. I can only think that Paula Vennells is sitting down right now with a huge team of legal people trying to work out how she swerves the inevitable that is coming.
Unfortunately as the former chief executive officer of Post Office Limited from 2012 to 2019, the buck must stop with her and no amount of 'I can't recall' and 'it wasn't my job' is going to cut it. I can probably sum up the enquiry right now in a few sentences, but hopefully Sir Wyn Williams will be able to call out all the porkies and cover-ups such that prosecution of the key players in both the POL and Fujitsu, can take place.
I reckon she'll do a mix of I can't recall and the classic political ploy of I wasn't told my people were doing this, I have to rely on briefings, I can't be everywhere, I have to delegate etc etcUnfortunately as the former chief executive officer of Post Office Limited from 2012 to 2019, the buck must stop with her and no amount of 'I can't recall' and 'it wasn't my job' is going to cut it. I can probably sum up the enquiry right now in a few sentences, but hopefully Sir Wyn Williams will be able to call out all the porkies and cover-ups such that prosecution of the key players in both the POL and Fujitsu, can take place.
OMITN said:
I'm not one of the legal bods who tends to share advice on PH (at least not that identifies me as a lawyer), but I am the general counsel of a large UK business.
If I'm honest, I look on with a degree of "there but for the grace of god". Which sounds like all lawyers - especially in-house lawyers - are up to no good. Let me explain:
As an in-house lawyer, you live in a permanently imperfect world: you have one client who is also your employer. You are an officer of the court (to whom you owe your primary responsibility) but you work in an organisation who employs you to get deliver its interests. You therefore have to oscillate rapidly between making good decisions for the business, remaining objective and meeting your professional obligations. It's even more complicated if you are also the company secretary (in-house counsel advise the business, co sec advises the board). I can think of few other roles that require so much intellectual separation to take place at once.
And that assumes you live in a perfect world where everyone you work with and for is only acting in the best interests of everyone at all times. Anyone who has had a job at whatever level in a business knows that all organisations are highly imperfect.
I have previously said that this is the largest corporate governance failure I have seen in my working life. It is a salutary tale for all in-house lawyers to think carefully about how they position their roles within the businesses they work for. Unlike finance and HR functions which are prevalent across organisations of all sizes, it remains unusual for all but decent sized organisations to have in-house legal functions. This creates a difficult environment as the legal team is expected to solve how it manages the "air gap" between taking an objective view and executing management decisions. Legal departments are regularly described as "blockers" to getting things done and are always require to demonstrate how we are proactive business partners - rather oddly I have always felt compelled to sell myself as someone who gets things done, as if that makes me special as a lawyer....
Couple that with a poorly managed organisation as the Post Office clearly was, together with an evidently toxic culture of blame and lack of accountability, and you can see that the lawyers - while clearly not innocent lambs (as much as Jarnail Singh wanted to paint himself as that) - are also playing a complex role while walking a near impossible tightrope.
The law is a tool - it isn't objectively pure when put into practice - and it is utilised to deliver a series of aims. Only as we have all looked in can we see that, step by step the legal functions within POL have increasingly lost objectivity. Rather like sensible people slowly getting drawn into a cult and failing to see the reality of what's going on around them.
I don't feel sorry for any of the lawyers at POL (even those who are still there and I know are desperately trying to leave), but I can see how they have all participated in their own falls from grace.
I have no doubt all of that is true and that it is a difficult tightrope to walk but ....If I'm honest, I look on with a degree of "there but for the grace of god". Which sounds like all lawyers - especially in-house lawyers - are up to no good. Let me explain:
As an in-house lawyer, you live in a permanently imperfect world: you have one client who is also your employer. You are an officer of the court (to whom you owe your primary responsibility) but you work in an organisation who employs you to get deliver its interests. You therefore have to oscillate rapidly between making good decisions for the business, remaining objective and meeting your professional obligations. It's even more complicated if you are also the company secretary (in-house counsel advise the business, co sec advises the board). I can think of few other roles that require so much intellectual separation to take place at once.
And that assumes you live in a perfect world where everyone you work with and for is only acting in the best interests of everyone at all times. Anyone who has had a job at whatever level in a business knows that all organisations are highly imperfect.
I have previously said that this is the largest corporate governance failure I have seen in my working life. It is a salutary tale for all in-house lawyers to think carefully about how they position their roles within the businesses they work for. Unlike finance and HR functions which are prevalent across organisations of all sizes, it remains unusual for all but decent sized organisations to have in-house legal functions. This creates a difficult environment as the legal team is expected to solve how it manages the "air gap" between taking an objective view and executing management decisions. Legal departments are regularly described as "blockers" to getting things done and are always require to demonstrate how we are proactive business partners - rather oddly I have always felt compelled to sell myself as someone who gets things done, as if that makes me special as a lawyer....
Couple that with a poorly managed organisation as the Post Office clearly was, together with an evidently toxic culture of blame and lack of accountability, and you can see that the lawyers - while clearly not innocent lambs (as much as Jarnail Singh wanted to paint himself as that) - are also playing a complex role while walking a near impossible tightrope.
The law is a tool - it isn't objectively pure when put into practice - and it is utilised to deliver a series of aims. Only as we have all looked in can we see that, step by step the legal functions within POL have increasingly lost objectivity. Rather like sensible people slowly getting drawn into a cult and failing to see the reality of what's going on around them.
I don't feel sorry for any of the lawyers at POL (even those who are still there and I know are desperately trying to leave), but I can see how they have all participated in their own falls from grace.
Edited by OMITN on Friday 3rd May 15:33
... imo (and IANAL) I would expect that when push comes to shove the ultimate factor ought to be to uphold the laid down standards and ethics of the profession. I understand the "I've been standing in it so long I can't smell it any more" factor but I think the public has a right to expect that highly educated professional people like lawyers and doctors will have the necessary moral compass to rise above that. I think it's safe to say that didn't happen at the PO.
PRTVR said:
I would have thought giving somebody else your login details would have been a sackable offence and no grounds for not knowing what was happening, surely that is the whole point of individual logins.
It’s pretty normal at a senior level My PA has access to my email accounts and my comms team manage my LinkedIn account. I have a separate email account for things do confidential my pa can’t be in the loop.
blueg33 said:
PRTVR said:
I would have thought giving somebody else your login details would have been a sackable offence and no grounds for not knowing what was happening, surely that is the whole point of individual logins.
It’s pretty normal at a senior level My PA has access to my email accounts and my comms team manage my LinkedIn account. I have a separate email account for things do confidential my pa can’t be in the loop.
As I said earlier in this thread, this isn't just a matter of one or two rotten individuals at the PO, it's a whole rotten quasi-commercial organisation where people didn't give a damn so long as they kept their comfy jobs.
Fujitsu are a side-line; it's fundamentally PO that's rotten.
amongst other things I find it astounding to watch these people be accused of sever wrongdoing and yet they respond in such a flat manner. If they have been lying and are now found out they should have the sense to admit it. If they are innocent I'd expect them te tell the questioning KC to go and stick it. It's truly pathetic. A rotten organisation from top to bottom.
Fujitsu are a side-line; it's fundamentally PO that's rotten.
amongst other things I find it astounding to watch these people be accused of sever wrongdoing and yet they respond in such a flat manner. If they have been lying and are now found out they should have the sense to admit it. If they are innocent I'd expect them te tell the questioning KC to go and stick it. It's truly pathetic. A rotten organisation from top to bottom.
Panamax said:
As I said earlier in this thread, this isn't just a matter of one or two rotten individuals at the PO, it's a whole rotten quasi-commercial organisation where people didn't give a damn so long as they kept their comfy jobs.
Fujitsu are a side-line; it's fundamentally PO that's rotten.
amongst other things I find it astounding to watch these people be accused of sever wrongdoing and yet they respond in such a flat manner. If they have been lying and are now found out they should have the sense to admit it. If they are innocent I'd expect them te tell the questioning KC to go and stick it. It's truly pathetic. A rotten organisation from top to bottom.
Whilst I agree that the whole thing is absolutely apalling and all those responsible should spend a long time staring at the wall inside a prison cell, with regard to the comment in bold above, the reason that they won't admit it to the enquiry is that they are under oath, and admitting, for example, that they withheld disclosable information in the court cases which led to the wrongful convictions of the SPMs would be a formal admission of perjury and perverting the course of justice, which would guarantee them being sent to prison.Fujitsu are a side-line; it's fundamentally PO that's rotten.
amongst other things I find it astounding to watch these people be accused of sever wrongdoing and yet they respond in such a flat manner. If they have been lying and are now found out they should have the sense to admit it. If they are innocent I'd expect them te tell the questioning KC to go and stick it. It's truly pathetic. A rotten organisation from top to bottom.
Went to a talk by Nick Wallis yesterday. Special guest was Ian Henderson of Second Sight, who was absolutely brilliant.
He said he had to be careful what he said as he had not given evidence to the enquiry yet. The PO, via Rodric Williams, had threatened to bankrupt him since he stopped working from them.
He sat next to Mr Singh at head office and said that most of the long serving staff were whitewashed and absolutely refused to believe anything could be wrong with Horizon.
He basically said that someone took the mickey out of the enquiry by the way they behaved
He said he liked someone else, which got a huge laugh. All being filmed for Sky news
He also said that more to come out when he gives evidence, especially about Jo Hamilton and the report that said no evidence of any foul play by her
He said he had to be careful what he said as he had not given evidence to the enquiry yet. The PO, via Rodric Williams, had threatened to bankrupt him since he stopped working from them.
He sat next to Mr Singh at head office and said that most of the long serving staff were whitewashed and absolutely refused to believe anything could be wrong with Horizon.
He basically said that someone took the mickey out of the enquiry by the way they behaved
He said he liked someone else, which got a huge laugh. All being filmed for Sky news
He also said that more to come out when he gives evidence, especially about Jo Hamilton and the report that said no evidence of any foul play by her
mcdjl said:
Sorry if I've missed it, but has there ever been an explanation of why the software was so bad that Fujitsu had to go in a chance the accounts fairly regularly? On the face of it all it had to do was add up the amount of cash going in and out of the till (ok I know there's more to it than that) but that shouldn't be hard.... Otherwise how do the supermarkets manage?
There was a ex fujitsu developer who was interviewed - said the code was poor, with constant patches that fixed one problem and then caused more unexpected issues - i posted about it a few pages back.Essentially it was a rapid prototype - that was converted into production system.
Google ‘horizon bad coding examples”
eliot said:
mcdjl said:
Sorry if I've missed it, but has there ever been an explanation of why the software was so bad that Fujitsu had to go in a chance the accounts fairly regularly? On the face of it all it had to do was add up the amount of cash going in and out of the till (ok I know there's more to it than that) but that shouldn't be hard.... Otherwise how do the supermarkets manage?
There was a ex fujitsu developer who was interviewed - said the code was poor, with constant patches that fixed one problem and then caused more unexpected issues - i posted about it a few pages back.Essentially it was a rapid prototype - that was converted into production system.
Google ‘horizon bad coding examples”
mcdjl said:
Sorry if I've missed it, but has there ever been an explanation of why the software was so bad that Fujitsu had to go in a chance the accounts fairly regularly? On the face of it all it had to do was add up the amount of cash going in and out of the till (ok I know there's more to it than that) but that shouldn't be hard.... Otherwise how do the supermarkets manage?
In my opinion, one of the key factors that led to the PO ending up with such an inadequate IT system goes right back to the flawed procurement process in the first place.Apparently, during the assessment of bids from potential suppliers, the Fujitsu bid was rated bottom of all the bids in 7 out of the 11 main assessment criteria. Ultimately they were awarded the contract because they were the cheapest.
Unfortunately, this type of situation is not uncommon with IT systems procurement - particularly when it comes to some large public sector IT procurements.
In the past, working in IT support, I've had to deal with the ongoing results of some system/supplier procurements where whoever ran the procurement had placed too high a weighting on price, with predictable results.
More recently I worked in a fairly senior public sector IT role, and have been involved in several significant IT systems procurements on the technical assessment side. I was very fortunate to work with some extremely competent procurement colleagues, and we also had sensible board level support. Whilst price was (obviously) a major assessment criteria, before the procurements even started, we had agreement on the formal criteria being in the ranges of 60%-70% quality, 40-30% price.
This resulted in ending up with systems that, whilst not perfect (no system is without faults), they were fit for purpose, and importantly, the supplier support was of a standard that meant issues were identified in an open manner and resolved in reasonable timescales.
It was not uncommon that when we came to a decision on the procurement, and the lowest price bid was unsuccessful, the procurement team were asked some very pointed questions, about the reasons for choosing a more expensive option. As the whole procurement and assessment methodology had been agreed and well documented, and the process had been run in line with this methodology, and could be proven to have been, these type of questions were able to be robustly answered and the decision justified.
TL:DR Public IT procurements can be fraught with challenges, and need a good procurement team and senior board level support to select the most appropriate choice, which is hardly ever the cheapest.
C n C said:
Whilst I agree that the whole thing is absolutely apalling and all those responsible should spend a long time staring at the wall inside a prison cell, with regard to the comment in bold above, the reason that they won't admit it to the enquiry is that they are under oath, and admitting, for example, that they withheld disclosable information in the court cases which led to the wrongful convictions of the SPMs would be a formal admission of perjury and perverting the course of justice, which would guarantee them being sent to prison.
Being under oath means you are bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it does not mean you lie if thats difficult for your position. If you feel giving a true answer will incriminate you, you must tell the chair you are exercising your right to not self incriminate. That is why the chair states this at the start to witnesses who may be in such a position.
What you are suggesting in your post is perjury in it's self, you can not lie after taking the oath.
mikeiow said:
AFAIK, they somehow still have that power.
Not sure I have seen it stripped?
Clearly they should NO LONGER have that power, and indeed I hope and pray that the Police take action against those who have so clearly shown themselves to have been complicit in ruining so many lives.
IIRC it needs an act of parliament to change (?) They have said they have no intention of using it going forwards.Not sure I have seen it stripped?
Clearly they should NO LONGER have that power, and indeed I hope and pray that the Police take action against those who have so clearly shown themselves to have been complicit in ruining so many lives.
732NM said:
C n C said:
Whilst I agree that the whole thing is absolutely apalling and all those responsible should spend a long time staring at the wall inside a prison cell, with regard to the comment in bold above, the reason that they won't admit it to the enquiry is that they are under oath, and admitting, for example, that they withheld disclosable information in the court cases which led to the wrongful convictions of the SPMs would be a formal admission of perjury and perverting the course of justice, which would guarantee them being sent to prison.
Being under oath means you are bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it does not mean you lie if thats difficult for your position. If you feel giving a true answer will incriminate you, you must tell the chair you are exercising your right to not self incriminate. That is why the chair states this at the start to witnesses who may be in such a position.
What you are suggesting in your post is perjury in it's self, you can not lie after taking the oath.
In no way was I condoning the way many of the witnesses are obviously lying, more offering an explanation as to why they don't admit what they have done.
Given the above, I'm actually more than a little surprised that quite a few of the witnesses haven't actually exercised the right to not self-incriminate.
On a similar note, I guess that "I am unable to recall" is a particular weasley wording as opposed to "I don't remember"?
It's absolutely infuriating watching them come out with the same rubbish day after day, and I really do marvel at how Mr Beer et al manage to stay cool and composed throughout being obviously lied to. I guess they've had a lot of experience!
732NM said:
Being under oath means you are bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it does not mean you lie if thats difficult for your position.
I don't understand all the legal ins and outs but when you see real police interviews on TV the suspect often replies "no comment" to every question, so faces no risk of self-incrimination.What I don't understand is why these PO managers turn up, make apologies, start answering questions and then get accused of lying. It all seems very bizarre.
There are many ways of saying, "Your accusations are completely unfounded and there's no justification for your assault on my good character. Please stop it." Yet none of the PO people are saying anything like it.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff