- Messages
- 15,750
- Edit My Images
- No
Is that the same (unchallenged) 'poor quality data' that lead them to prosecute so many innocent people and ruin their lives
and please use their services
Mr Bates and the Post Office
- Thread starter Garry Edwards
- Start date
- Messages
- 329
- Name
- Clive
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, presumably. Another aspect that I cannot understand is whether the postmasters were given access to the balance sheets in paper form? Under PACE which I presume the PO have to comply with, defendents are entutled to see the evidence against them. And Judges should ensure that they have.Is that the same (unchallenged) 'poor quality data' that lead them to prosecute so many innocent people and ruin their lives
lindsay
Admin
- Messages
- 5,220
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They need the general ledger data, and the skills of a financial accountant or at least very good double entry bookkeeper, to wade through it. That should reveal the chart of accounts that was being used, which in turn would identify the missing pot of dosh.
I have worked on accountancy systems for 45 years (manual and computerised). I can do bank reconciliations, trial balance, balance sheet to final accounts manually or on a system. I once worked for a firm who were merging with a larger firm (about 3,000 staff after the merger). The head honcho decided not to do any bank recs whilst the merger was going on and brought in temp staff with no experience to do financial postings to the system. I plus two of my colleagues from the smaller firm spoke out against this, but didn't get anywhere. After a month, it was decided that all the posting had been completed and that we should commence bank recs once more. It was complete chaos, with a £450,000 difference on the Office account. So, some bright spark decided that we should alternate the bank rec process (which had now gone manual because of the massive difference) between various staff, most of whom had never done a manual bank rec. After a fortnight of more chaos and frayed tempers, they were ready to write off the difference. I threw an absolute barney, telling them that the difference probably involved hundreds of transactions from hundreds of accounts. I asked to take the bank rec home, or better still, to be left alone for a week to sort it out. After four or five days I had reconciled the account with no unknown differences, they were all reconciling items. However, I did find one particularly startling mistake, which accounted for all but £50K of the original difference. During the non bank rec period, our bank ahd made a mistake with an inter account transfer, they had transferred around £420K form the Office to the Clients a/c, instead of transferring it from the Clients to the Office a/c.
I was pretty shocked and disgusted, that people above me were prepared to be so lazy and unprofessional in order to sweep something under the carpet.
- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed.
- Messages
- 10,407
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There'll be a great deal of soul-searching like that going on not to mention bum-twitching. This evening I watched an interview with the boss or a senior person of the forensic accountancy firm,Second Sight , brought in by the PO and he was at the hearing at a Select Committee when a one of the top PO people was being interviewed and she lied. I can't recall who she was but right at the top. There are secret recordings of PO management thinking how they can cover up the findings and actually stop the firm contining. They withheld vital documents and the eventually sacked the firm as they were getting very close to finding the truth. The firm told them things weren't right.They were,initially, told that there were no problems with Horizon when the PO knew full well there were. Difficult to recall it exactly but that was the essence of it.
I've had a dig arounds and found this.
Did government allow Post Office to sack forensic accountants to cover up Horizon scandal? | Computer Weekly
Whatever the Post Office told the government about its decision to sack investigators examining subpostmaster prosecutions for theft could identify if the government was part of a cover-up.
From the article: "Although the Post Office had stopped prosecuting subpostmasters by 2015, had Second Sight been given what it needed, it would have got to the truth earlier. This would have saved millions of pounds in legal costs to taxpayers and former subpostmasters, who would have been vindicated years earlier"
- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
Anything's possible but...
They'd need a way to transfer the money out of the Post Office accounts and into some other depository. I'd have thought that even the Post Office
- Messages
- 329
- Name
- Clive
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, it is reported that the EU ignore unexplained discrepencies in their accounts below a certain % because it would cost more to find it than lose it. Fujitsu operators were working on postmaster's transactions unnoticed, sometimes at night, supposedly trying to correct mistakes and yet nobody at the post office claimed to be aware of it. They were shifting money about without the post office's admitted knowledge and subsequent audits have not been able to trace the transactions because they don't have the necessary information.
Fujitsu operators had the motive, the means and the oppertunity.
- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
The EU are a different matter to a tax paying person or organisation within the UK.
According to the Companies House guidance page (5th April 2023) the rules are...
This suggests that the directors of the Post Office should now be facing prosecution for failing to maintain such accounting records over many years and thus "selling pork pies" to Companies House. Just another little matter that I imagine we're supposed not to notice...
- Messages
- 329
- Name
- Clive
- Edit My Images
- No
And helpfully their current CEO has recently admitted as much.
- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, just as you start to think the mess is beginning to get sorted out, it emerges that "Horizon" was meant to fix its predecessor, a thing called "Capture"...
www.theguardian.com
Guess what? "Capture" was also known to introduce innacurate records and staff were also prosecuted for mistakes that were within the program. Still, they did things differently then and went after non-white staff because "British Asian women were often pushed into theft"
Ex-post office operator claims she was told British Asians were often pushed into theft
Exclusive: Kuldeep Kaur Atwal says auditors urged her to admit to stealing £30,000 – a charge of which she was later cleared
Guess what? "Capture" was also known to introduce innacurate records and staff were also prosecuted for mistakes that were within the program. Still, they did things differently then and went after non-white staff because "British Asian women were often pushed into theft"
- Messages
- 15,750
- Edit My Images
- No
Plus, the racial profiling and what would I surmise would (now) be called institutional racism.......the litany of awful management in the PO goes onWell, just as you start to think the mess is beginning to get sorted out, it emerges that "Horizon" was meant to fix its predecessor, a thing called "Capture"...
Ex-post office operator claims she was told British Asians were often pushed into theft
Exclusive: Kuldeep Kaur Atwal says auditors urged her to admit to stealing £30,000 – a charge of which she was later cleared
Guess what? "Capture" was also known to introduce innacurate records and staff were also prosecuted for mistakes that were within the program. Still, they did things differently then and went after non-white staff because "British Asian women were often pushed into theft"
PS who were the developers of "Capture"......was it perhaps 'inhouse' ???
- Messages
- 15,750
- Edit My Images
- No
More info about Operation Sparrow cover up and the rot in the management that considered it was appropriate to try to hide the flaws et al
www.bbc.co.uk
Post Office accused of secret documents cover-up - BBC News
BBC obtains unredacted minutes showing government knew of plan to sack experts who found Horizon IT bugs.
www.bbc.co.uk
- Messages
- 949
- Name
- ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As part of the investigation, they will come to your home, and literally turn it inside out. One postmistress, accused of a £13,000 loss even had her lingerie draw turned inside out. when she asked what she was supposed to have done with the money, they replied that she must have spent it,
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24047335.dorset-postmistress-lived-fear-post-office-scandal/
- Messages
- 949
- Name
- ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Latest news is that Henry Staunton has been forced to resign as chairman of the Post Office
- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
The mills of justice grinding slowly, I think - but it remains to be seen if they also grind exceeding small...
- Messages
- 1,619
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 10,407
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
More info about Operation Sparrow cover up and the rot in the management that considered it was appropriate to try to hide the flaws et al
Post Office accused of secret documents cover-up - BBC News
BBC obtains unredacted minutes showing government knew of plan to sack experts who found Horizon IT bugs.
The article mentions Alice Perkin's role as Chair of the PO.
Alice Perkins - Powerbase
From this link...."Alice Perkins is a former civil servant, working in the Department of Health and Social Security, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. She is currently chairman of the Post Office Ltd and an associate at JCA Group"
Alice Perkins is married to the former Home Secretary Jack Straw. He retired in 2015. (MP for Blackburn)
The below copy/paste is from your BBC News article and, as you see, the agreement (minutes of a meeting) to sack Second Sight are dated 30 April 2014 and Jack Straw was still an MP.
My bold:
"Three weeks later, on 30 April 2014, they agree on a plan to bring the investigation of sub-postmasters' cases "within the control of the Post Office", removing Second Sight from its role of investigating sub-postmasters' cases independently. However, that decision was kept secret from Parliament and the public as the Post Office claimed Second Sight's independent review supported its approach to sub-postmasters' complaints. The Post Office was then seeking to defuse the scandal through a mediation scheme, which excluded many victims from compensation"
So, his wife not only didn't tell parliament about "sacking" the auditors Second Sight but, one assumes, her husband. I wonder what Jack thinks of all this ?
- Messages
- 15,750
- Edit My Images
- No
The machinations that go on are convoluted in the extreme.The article mentions Alice Perkin's role as Chair of the PO.
Alice Perkins - Powerbase
powerbase.info
From this link...."Alice Perkins is a former civil servant, working in the Department of Health and Social Security, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. She is currently chairman of the Post Office Ltd and an associate at JCA Group"
Alice Perkins is married to the former Home Secretary Jack Straw. He retired in 2015. (MP for Blackburn)
The below copy/paste is from your BBC News article and, as you see, the agreement (minutes of a meeting) to sack Second Sight are dated 30 April 2014 and Jack Straw was still an MP.
My bold:
"Three weeks later, on 30 April 2014, they agree on a plan to bring the investigation of sub-postmasters' cases "within the control of the Post Office", removing Second Sight from its role of investigating sub-postmasters' cases independently. However, that decision was kept secret from Parliament and the public as the Post Office claimed Second Sight's independent review supported its approach to sub-postmasters' complaints. The Post Office was then seeking to defuse the scandal through a mediation scheme, which excluded many victims from compensation"
So, his wife not only didn't tell parliament about "sacking" the auditors Second Sight but, one assumes, her husband. I wonder what Jack thinks of all this ?
I am not clear whether the role of the Chair (in the PO) is non-executive or not i.e. does the Chair have controlling authority or not as the case may be in guiding/instructing Executive decisions........or more the highest level 'mouthpiece' for decided policy?
- Messages
- 949
- Name
- ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
May not be around for much longer, as there are doubts as to whether the Post Office can survive in the wake of this scandal.
The next twist is emerging in that if you have your conviction revoked and compensation awarded, then consider the subpostmistress who told her story on Breakfast TV. Been waiting since 2019 for compensation, and still no definite date when it will be paid.
As for that Vennels woman, can't stand her. An ordained member of the church, who seems to be unconcerned regarding the suffering endured by innocent people. At least four have committed suicide, for example
- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
She appears to be a typical hypocrite. Being "religious" is often a clue in such people.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,714
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
That post should be beneath you.
By all means criticise those who have acted badly but to make the leap and include religion is uncalled for.
If you've any decency you'll edit your post.
- Messages
- 10,407
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a non-executive role,Laurence.
Here's what that means .It's the best I could find. Nothing specific to the PO.
https://www.thecorporategovernancei...ld be independent,executive chair and the CEO.
Re policy ......that's set by the government. A copy/paste
Ie...the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is responsible for setting the strategic policy for the Post Office network and for agreeing Post Office Ltd's business plan. Post Office Ltd is responsible for managing the network of around 11,800 post office branches in the UK.