SAS ties are freely available......Originally Posted by Carlton-Browne
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/256546589...Bk9SR9acvtCGZA
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Re PickleB post, POL seems to be in self-destruct mode.
Just watched Graham Ward (PO security casework manager) get absolutely nailed by Mr Beer over altering/hiding potentially damaging - to POL - evidence. Sir Wyn turned away in disgust at the end of the session.
I'd be pretty confident he is the real deal. If he weren't, he would know that wearing such a badge and tie when not entitled to would blow his credibility out of the water. Throughout this whole sorry saga he has consistently come across as one of the good guys, with real integrity, who tried his best against a malevolent corporate edifice.
So clever my foot fell off.
Edit: See also: Graham Ward: a man in trouble.
Last edited by PickleB; 20th June 2024 at 19:52.
I have no doubt they are - I suspect he's the real deal though (and I'm sure POL would have done their best to dig some dirt if he wasn't).
I was drawn, watching YT I think, to comments made about the huge cost of all the litigation, especially to the SPMs and JFSA. The only winners being the lawyers etc.
Someone needs to be asking that the government (as owners of the PO) reimburses all legal costs for the defendants and JFSA and also funds any ongoing legal fees for the JFSA, be they for civil or criminal matters.
Whilst it is going to come from the pocket of every tax payer, well, it is what it is.
Last edited by Mouse; 20th June 2024 at 16:45. Reason: Corrected-JSFA
Update on the Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation on the Post Office Horizon IT scandal:
...As officers of the court, solicitors should never put other interests - such as the outcome for their client - above the law and the proper administration of justice.
We have more than 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms who were working on behalf of the Post Office/Royal Mail Group.
We are looking at a wide range of issues, including:
- solicitors' management and supervision of cases; and the strategy and conduct of prosecutions and of litigation(including group litigation - Mr Bates vs The Post Office)
- duties relating to expert witnesses
- disclosure obligations and improper application of privilege to protect communications from disclosure
- issues relating to the operation of the Post Office Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme, including overcharging of claimants, use of non-disclosure-agreements and labelling of correspondence.
This is not an exhaustive list. We are also looking at the conduct of solicitors in relation to their engagement and cooperation with the ongoing public inquiry...
After her evidence at the Inquiry today, I look forward to a similar interview with Dr Kay Linnell.
Susan Crichton cut a sorry figure when giving her evidence, didn’t garner great sympathy, although in her favour did throw Vennells under the bus.
She seems to have been absolved to quite an extent by Second Sight and KL as being an individual who did have an interest in getting to the truth and seeking justice despite having a senior position in the PO. Vennells and Price really had it in for her.
Aujard took a beating today, cast as a real villain.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by BillyCasper; 20th June 2024 at 16:54.
Given George Thomson's verbosity, I can only imagine that Jason Beer KC is rejoicing in his decision to delegate the questioning of the former General Secretary of the National Federation of Subpostmasters to Julian Blake.
George Thomson shows a total lack of contrition, even when presented with evidence of his complete lack of appropriate action (IMO).
Edit: Add to that arrogance and intransigence.
Last edited by PickleB; 21st June 2024 at 12:31.
Seeing his posture before the inquiry, wearing that awful, unbuttoned shirt, should tell you all you need to know about George Thomson.
Edit: Does he have shares in Fujitsu?!
<I thought I'd seen it all at the inquiry so far, today shattered that view>
Last edited by Mouse; 21st June 2024 at 14:39.
Courtesy of Mr Stein KC, add aggressive and belligerent.
Edit: Now being questioned by the legal representative of the NFSP...the very organisation of which he was the General Secretary!
Edit 2: My imagined line from Sir Wyn after today's session...TGIF! The same goes for Counsel and those who sat through his evidence.
,
Last edited by PickleB; 21st June 2024 at 16:05.
I sincerely hope this nasty bit of stuff gets his.
comeuppance
nounINFORMAL
a punishment or fate that someone deserves.
Staggering, even by the standards of this scandal, just jaw-droppingly staggering.
Quite possibly the worst so far.
Ye gods and little fishes! Anyone coming in part way through would have thought he was representing the Post Office, not Sub Postmasters! I get the impression, (as I believe Sir Wyn did), that he still thinks many of these people are still guilty! What an abject failure of a man.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Indeed - just a gob.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
You missed the shite on the end of that Chris, like Peter said how on earth is he the union rep what a awful man makes you shudder that he was supposed to have the best interests of the sub postmasters at heart, protecting the brand eh.
See Wiki for a bit of the history he banged on about yesterday:
...The NFSP was originally a trade union. In 2013 the Post Office stated that they did not recognise the NFSP for collective bargaining purposes.
Following a ruling of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that subpostmasters were not employees of Post Office Ltd, but were engaged under a contract for services, the Trades Union Certification Officer wrote to the NFSP to say that he believed the organisation did not meet the legal requirements to continue to be recognised as a trade union. Having rejected arguments against this by the NFSP, the Certification Officer stripped the organisation of trade union status on 13 January 2014. Via a democratic vote, members chose overwhelmingly to reject amalgamation with other trade unions. The NFSP changed its status to a trade association on 1 October 2016...
So, he was not a Union representative in the usual sense of that term. Plainly, from his evidence, he saw his job as being to get deals with POL for the members...and in doing preserve his position. All else seems to have been periferal to his way of thinking...and that included the welfare of the members.
I cannot be sure whether or not that ties up with the agreement the NFSP had with its members. But I suspect not, as it is a matter of record that many were severely disappointed when they sought assistance from the NFSP.
He's certainly an odious individual.
But my question is how was the PO allowed to "not recognise the NFSP as a union"?
Surely that must have been a Government level decision? Otherwise all sorts of privatised industries - eg trains and power - could simply decide not to recognise the unions in their sectors, and transform them into dependent pet organisations with no power or teeth to challenge or hold them to account.
So clever my foot fell off.
The Wiki page has a link to a FoI request:
Subpostmasters are not ‘workers’ for the purposes of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and as such the Post Office Ltd cannot recognise the National Federation of Sub Postmasters for collective bargaining purposes.
Thomson’s written statement makes for interesting reading. I’d infer from it that he wasn’t advised or represented- or else that he ignored any professional advice he took.
From the transcript of his oral evidence (p166- p167):
No, I don't accept that and I was advised that I should come on here and just blame it on the Post Office: apologise, apologise, apologise. I'm trying to give it more nuance. And, in fact, I believe, because the Federation thought I was going to be more robust, that they refused for me to have a lawyer here today. They refused to help me with the legal costs here today because they knew I was going to be more robust.
So I've come here today without a solicitor because the National Federation of SubPostmasters didn't like the fact that I was going to be robust and tell the truth, not just come along and apologise for the sake of apologising. And, as I said before, the NFSP had a year and a half after I left to change their policy about Horizon and they didn't do it.
IMO, his were sins of omission occasioned by his complicity with POL and bolstered by his arrogance and intransigence - see post above. He did/does have a point to make, but very much overdid it yesterday. Quite how much of a defence that may prove to be will best be shown by whatever Sir Wyn puts into his report.
Ward is in danger of prosecution and knows it. Beer eviscerated him beautifully.
Thompson came across as a King Cnut. Almost a comedic parody of a Glaswegian hardman.
Linnell is the unsung hero (heroine) of this sorry saga. Along with Messrs Bates, Henderson & Warmington she deserves great honour and public recognition.
Fortunately he isn’t Glaswegian, more likely Fife, or some other Eastern province but still a total insult to all those postmasters who thought his organisation was on their side.
Statement from NFSP CEO Calum Greenhow:
The NFSP of today has been shocked by the evidence of its former General Secretary, George Thomson, given today. This is especially so given the number of people who suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal and the clear evidence at the Inquiry which shows that Horizon was not “robust”.
We want to apologise unreservedly to any member who sought help from the NFSP about Horizon and didn’t receive the support they so desperately needed and deserved. It is clear that more could and should have been done for them and for others. Sadly, due to Mr Thomson’s position on Horizon during his time as General Secretary, this did not happen and for that we are truly sorry.
We believe the evidence today showed that during Mr Thomson’s tenure between 2007 and 2018 he did not take seriously enough the significant warning signals about Horizon and was not willing to accept challenges to his views on it. We believe the evidence also shows his relationship with senior Post Office personnel was too close, to the detriment of those raising issues about Horizon.
That is not the case for the NFSP of today. We are fully open, transparent and public in our condemnation of the Post Office and the way in which they lied to the NFSP and everyone else about Horizon and then deliberately covered up what they knew for many years. This resulted in postmasters, assistants and employees of the Post Office having their lives utterly ruined.
I and my fellow postmaster colleagues of the NFSP, some of whom are victims themselves, are determined to continue engaging with and helping the Inquiry in any way we can to uncover the truth of what happened over the past 20 years.
I think everyone was!
I just came across a paper from the HoC Business and Trade Select Committee Inquiry on Post Office and Horizon.
Among the Written evidence was a submission from Mark Baker (pdf link...POH0008). It begins:
... I was elected on a ticket of challenging the Executive Council ( EC) for its seemingly cosy relationship it had with the Post Office. This was because Postmasters in my Region were frustrated that their incomes were falling and the Post Office did what they wanted and the NFSP never challenged the Post Office.
My mandate was to find out why this was and to bring about change that made the NFSP act more like the Trade Union that it was supposed to be.
It's fair to say that I failed in this endeavour.
He later says:
The constant support given to the Post Office by George Thomson increased particularly during the times that he was trying to talk the Government into Mutualising the Post Office.
I was not the only member of the Executive to be turned upon. A colleague, Mike Rudkin the then Chair of the NFSP negotiating committee was also treated very harshly by George Thomson. In my opinion Mr Rudkins troubles started after he raised concerns about what he had witnessed at the Fujitsu HQ in Bracknell. Where he saw Fujitsu software engineers remotely access the Horizon system and in live time alter a Postmasters accounting figures.
I finally left the NFSP in 2010 after several failed attempts to try and get them to change their ways.
And:
I do not recognise the NFSP that I was once proud to play a leading role in. The organisation has descended into a money making machine benefitting only those who form its board of Directors. The last thing on their minds is protecting the interests of the very Postmasters they profess to represent.
The submission also contains more about the machinations within the NFSP at that time and makes particular mention of Mr Thomson.
To (loathingly) paraphrase George Thomson......"this a scandal on steroids"
I am finding it almost beyond comprehension just how far and deep this rabbit hole goes.
Gareth Jenkins next week. I dare not even guess how that might go.
Agree George Thompson was truly woeful and many other adjectives but if nothing else he was “himself” no veneer no acting full on “what you see is what you get” no contrition and no interest in any other viewpoint.
I think his unpolished unprepared performance unlike those who have come before him is actually neatly exposing the true reality and indeed mentality of the PO High Command and how they collectively felt about postmasters i.e. a bunch of thieves with their hand in the till after all as George I think put it “cash is a temptation”.
He’s the perfect attack dog for pasty execs who don’t want to get blood on their blouses.
Venells was seemingly well advised by an expert specialising in Corporate Governance, when to keep silent, to apologise ,sobbing (might have been real) and of course that she had been very badly let down by those she trusted hiding the truth from her (list of names provided suitable double decker bus at the ready) as she battled tirelessly for justice just like Erin Brockovich, all that was missing was a trip to Woking for a Pizza.
George wasn’t instead he was in Hold my pint it’s time to go on the attack mode as he clearly still has the opinion the miscarriage is the other way round.
George is the “If I want your opinion I’ll give it to you” type chap
In regards police and charges I think they’re sat in HQ getting a free investigation and will pull the trigger eventually, hopefully.
Last edited by TKH; 23rd June 2024 at 05:58.
I'm still (and I'd love to be wrong) of the opinion that it will slowly dissappear and she'll retire on a fat pension somewhere. Nobody will go to jail and they'll get a slap on the wrist and the phrase 'lessons have been learned ' will be touted about.
I totally disagree, you underestimate Sir Bates
He won't stop, he's like the Alien
People are going to prison , police are already well into several investigations
Sadly Thomson probably hasn't broken the law , he's guilty of being a shyte, but it will follow him the rest of his life at least he will get started at in pubs
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Excellent analysis. Do you think he’s a useful idiot, or has someone/something made it financially worth his while? I’m inclining towards the former.
Useful idiot. Too much of a loose cannon to "trust".
I was slightly amused when Sir Wyn felt he had to intervene to check whether Thomson realised that POL and Fujitsu had already fessed up.
Likewise!
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Gareth Jenkins scheduled for four days next week.
I believe he has asserted privilege against self incrimination in his written evidence and so could be hearing this next week during his oral evidence.
A search for Gareth Jenkins comes up with a LinkedIn entry:
Gareth Jenkins (Not That One) - Fujitsu which made me chuckle.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
As I understand it, by the time he gives his oral evidence Gareth Jenkins will have submitted three written statements to the Inquiry, has not received an undertaking from the Attorney General that his evidence cannot be used in any criminal proceedings brought against him, but may rely upon the privilege against self-incrimination in giving evidence. See Gareth Jenkins (Ruling 2) for the background.
Re Gareth Jenkins: FWIW I think he was not told what being an expert witnesses meant -- in fact, quite the opposite: his draft statements were edited (doctored? neutered?) by lawyers* who not only should have known the duties of an EW but also knew they shouldn't have been altering what the EW planned to say. That's basically tampering with evidence.
*take a bow, Warwick Tatford. Seema Misra went to prison because of you.
I have to agree. My impression is that Mr Jenkins was exploited because his technical expertise gave credence to the falsehoods fed to him by POL et al for his court appearances as a witness.
Thanks for the pointer to Warwick Tatford:
...Beer’s interrogation of Tatford focused on his handling of Gareth Jenkins, an engineer at Horizon creator Fujitsu.
Jenkins was never provided with a written document setting out his obligations as an expert witness, and his report did not include various components required by the Criminal Procedure Rules to ensure it was objective.
“I did know they were in the Criminal Procedure Rules”, said Tatford, but “I quite clearly didn’t consider them properly”.
Quizzed as to why Jenkins’ duties weren’t set out in writing as required, Tatford told Beer, “What I can see now is that, because of the difficulties of timing and various other stressors within the case, I tried to cover the points myself by explaining things orally when that simply isn’t the safe way to proceed, and I was in error in that”.
His testimony shone a harsh light on the conduct of Post Office solicitor Jarnail Singh. Somewhat undermining the CPR edict that expert witnesses must be made aware of their obligation to be impartial, Singh was revealed to have told Jenkins, “Just a reminder you are an Expert for Fujitsu. You’ll be giving evidence in Court. The judge and jury will be listening to you very carefully and a lot will hang on the evidence.”
Asked at the Inquiry whether this was “risible”, Tatford acknowledged that as an instruction for an expert witness to act in an independent and unbiased manner, Singh’s approach was “completely wrong”....
More about Warwick Tatford (who, by his name, sounds like an obscure reggae artist but alas looks quite the opposite) here:
https://richardmoorhead.substack.com...arwick-tatford
To his credit he seems genuinely sorry ("ashamed") of his part in this appalling scandal. Unlike e.g. Parsons or Singh. The word I want for them is fit only for The Bear Pit but it starts with a "c".
George Thompson's attitude is unfortunately depressingly common in that level of position my experience. Complete lack of self awareness or possibility that you might be wrong, to the point of absurdity.
Slightly sideways
But just watched Sir Ed Davey on CH5
Asked where he went wrong with Post Office
He said
“Well I got 2 things wrong”
“1st I didn’t respond to Alan’s letter”
“2nd when I did meet with him I didn’t believe him based on assurances I was given from my advisors and the PO”
That’s that cleared up then
I just found that online and was not impressed...at all.
Same lines as almost everyone whose appeared before the Inquiry
1. I didn't see that email / read that report.
2. The lawyers / tech people told me it was all good. (This one falls apart when it IS a lawyer / tech person.)
To be fair it does seem that the problem with many of those involved was misplaced reliance on the honesty of main players instead of questioning things more closely.
From what I've seen of the inquiry so far, there's only a few that have made me angry enough that I'd want to see them in jail, though I suspect there'll be more interviewed and possibly some complicit middle managers who will unfortunately get away with it.
Everyone lied, ever when people were going to jail , whether they worked for Horizon , the GPO, a Union or a law firm, no one raised the alarm, they all deserve to go to prison for perverting the course of justice
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Make that FIVE written witness statements (link)...updates and revisions being occasioned (I believe) by belated disclosure of information / documents from POL.
Lunchtime, Day 1 (of 3) so plenty could yet go wrong for Gareth Jenkins but so far he’s come across as a very genuine guy. He’s a computer nerd who thought “Expert Witness” just meant someone who was, well, an expert. No one told him what it means in the legal sense.
He’s been cast a Baddie but honestly he’s been one of the better witnesses so far. Of course Beer may be pacing himself and have some killer blows up his sleeve but GJ is being polite, helpful, and (seemingly) honest.
Agreed. As an IT professional myself, all his actions outlined today have been perfectly reasonable in my view and I'd be hard pushed to say that I would have done much different in his shoes, given the information supplied.
There is obviously a gulf in understanding that can be attributed to the view of "robust" - in IT this term would not exclude bugs or errors. A system can be perfectly robust and would still almost certainly have faults.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote