The Lemon Fool

swill453 wrote:BBC Breakfast had a bunch of wronged sub postmasters on this morning, here's a 3 minute clip where they summarise their (almost identical) experiences https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67929023

Scott.

Alan Bates himself was interviewed on t'wireless today. Having heard parts of both Today and WATO, I can't say with certainty where I heard him.

UncleEbenezer wrote:Alan Bates himself was interviewed on t'wireless today. Having heard parts of both Today and WATO, I can't say with certainty where I heard him.

Does anyone know what Alan Bates used to do during his working life? I understand he became a Sub Post Master after his retirement and, of course, the ITV drama portrayed him as an kind of dogged, innocent abroad - a David to the PO Goliath. But something I heard him say somewhere revealed he had "experience with these sort of systems" and was fully aware they could not necessarily be depended upon.

This could be a reason why he had the confidence to take on the PO over Horizon, whereas some of the others portrayed in the play seemed IT naïve.

XFool wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:Alan Bates himself was interviewed on t'wireless today. Having heard parts of both Today and WATO, I can't say with certainty where I heard him.

Does anyone know what Alan Bates used to do during his working life? I understand he became a Sub Post Master after his retirement and, of course, the ITV drama portrayed him as an kind of dogged, innocent abroad - a David to the PO Goliath. But something I heard him say somewhere revealed he had "experience with these sort of systems" and was fully aware they could not necessarily be depended upon.

This could be a reason why he had the confidence to take on the PO over Horizon, whereas some of the others portrayed in the play seemed IT naïve.

The report I've posted earlier in this thread mentions that he used to work in IT, and more specifically PoS systems, and was in his mid-40s when he gave that up to run a post office. I don't recollect in what role, but when Horizon was introduced it would've felt like becoming his former self's own customer!

UncleEbenezer wrote:

XFool wrote:Sadly, all the signs now, are that this matter is being taken up for party political gain and infighting as much as for any other reason.

Are you sure? It looks to me like a cross-party matter, and credible politicians are steering clear of party-political nonsense. Only the disreputable fringe (notably the sources nimrod keeps posting here) are pumping out party politics. The Torygraph: a once-reputable paper, now reduced to the arms-length mouthpiece of the Party on matters too dirty for the Party's own hands.

This of course is nonsense. It is a case of apportioning blame to those who deserve it, and if those people have been vociferous in the past demanding resignations, they should rightly be called out for hypocrisy if they refuse to fall on their swords now. I have no idea what party Paula Vennells belongs to, but as I mentioned earlier, the head of Fujitsu UK at the time is married to a Tory cabinet minister.

My main concern is that the press has homed in on Vennells, and there can be no doubt many people of all parties would be happy if she took all the blame herself. This inquiry is turning into a rerun of the Covid inquiry which is looking for scapegoats, and avoiding the real issues. One of the Telegraph columnists said the UK did inquiries really well, - I agree but only in the sense that they are designed to delay and obfuscate.

Ian Hislop and Nick Wallis on Radio 4's Media Show just now.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

XFool wrote:Does anyone know what Alan Bates used to do during his working life? I understand he became a Sub Post Master after his retirement and, of course, the ITV drama portrayed him as an kind of dogged, innocent abroad - a David to the PO Goliath. But something I heard him say somewhere revealed he had "experience with these sort of systems" and was fully aware they could not necessarily be depended upon.

This could be a reason why he had the confidence to take on the PO over Horizon, whereas some of the others portrayed in the play seemed IT naïve.

The report I've posted earlier in this thread mentions that he used to work in IT, and more specifically PoS systems, and was in his mid-40s when he gave that up to run a post office. I don't recollect in what role, but when Horizon was introduced it would've felt like becoming his former self's own customer!

OK thanks, UE. I may have missed that.

servodude wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:Are you sure? It looks to me like a cross-party matter, and credible politicians are steering clear of party-political nonsense. Only the disreputable fringe (notably the sources nimrod keeps posting here) are pumping out party politics.

From the coverage I've seen I would agree.
I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the way Fujitsu have become a homogeneous whipping target for the same fringe.

Everybody seems to be running around eager to 'pin the tail on the donkey' (or donkeys). The trouble is, to me this has always looked likely to be a complicated matter with likely no big single Villain. It involves two separate organisations (with different departments in each) plus the sub postmasters who, although one single category when taken as a whole, were actually a large number of disparate individuals. They had an official central representative body, but that has been reported to have been of little help to them.

I imagine it to be a distributed issue, arising out of things such as corporate culture and structure along with management structure and quality.

I find the latest display of PO scandal bandwagon leaping by politicians utterly nauseating. It is the the government who own the Post Office and who ultimately have responsibility for it under DoBIS. Alarm bells were ringing 20 odd years ago, and only now have they reacted. Vennells was I believe appointed as CEO by HMG, and in 2019 was also made a non-executive member for the cabinet office.

HMG and many others have an awful lot of doubtless extremely embarrassing questions to answer, but I fear the Rev. Paula is about to be shoved under a very large PO van.

By the by, can we have a petition for Alan Bates to receive a CBE?

XFool wrote:... They had an official central representative body, but that has been reported to have been of little help to them.

It's worse than that. Private Eye reporting points out that the Postmasters' 'union' was almost fully funded by, er, the Post Office and that it therefore may have been, ahem, conflicted in its willingness or ability to take up this fight on behalf of its members.

Oggy wrote:By the by, can we have a petition for Alan Bates to receive a CBE?

He has, of course, already turned down an OBE. Yeah, a CBE is better, but not was good as the knighthood Downing St. is talking about giving him. https://www.google.com/search?q=alan+bates+knighthood

UncleEbenezer wrote:Neither would I rule out the possibility - even likelihood - that it simply vanishes into nothingness.

My experience and expectation is that financial systems will have a reconciliation process, and if funds aren't where they should be, then they are somewhere else that they shouldn't be. No matter how bad the Fujitsu system is/was, I'm sure that it was designed to reconcile.

Which has prompted me to take this thinking a step further...if the system is now performing correctly, at some point they will have identified and fixed the problem. Pointing to a significant cover-up.

elkay wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:Neither would I rule out the possibility - even likelihood - that it simply vanishes into nothingness.

My experience and expectation is that financial systems will have a reconciliation process, and if funds aren't where they should be, then they are somewhere else that they shouldn't be. No matter how bad the Fujitsu system is/was, I'm sure that it was designed to reconcile.

But as I said above, Horizon was prone to creating phantom transactions. This would result in a real deficit, with the postmaster forced to pay in real money.

The books now reconcile, but the postmaster is out of pocket.

Scott.

Everybody seems to be running around eager to 'pin the tail on the donkey' (or donkeys). The trouble is, to me this has always looked likely to be a complicated matter with likely no big single Villain. It involves two separate organisations (with different departments in each) plus the sub postmasters who, although one single category when taken as a whole, were actually a large number of disparate individuals. They had an official central representative body, but that has been reported to have been of little help to them.

I imagine it to be a distributed issue, arising out of things such as corporate culture and structure along with management structure and quality.

It doesn't seem that complicated to me.
At some stage people knew that the Horizon software was at fault. Yet the prosecutions continued. Simple as that.

These people are handsomely rewarded for shouldering responsibility. It appears that the responsibily is rapidly jetisoned when it all goes tits up or, more correctly, found out. So hiding in a jungle of corporate bureacracy just adds to the catalogue of wrongdoings.

If anyone wants a quick overview, this is quite good:
https://reaction.life/postmastergate-br ... e-scandal/

Let's not forget the postmasters' kids who also innocently suffered because of this debacle.

He has, of course, already turned down an OBE. Yeah, a CBE is better, but not was good as the knighthood Downing St. is talking about giving him.

Excellent. What really grinds my gears is the total absolution of responsibility of many folk, especially when these folk garner millions of pounds of our money. Who on earth appoints them? Why? I fear it is the ever increasing tendency to appoint people who are good talkers rather than people who are good walkers. Could it be that Vennells was simply way out of her comfort zone and had no clue as to how to tackle the issues with Horizon? Blagging your way through a job will only get you so far, and there are consequences to this sort of behaviour.

Oggy wrote:Could it be that Vennells was simply way out of her comfort zone and had no clue as to how to tackle the issues with Horizon?

I don't think anyone expects Vennells nor any other manager or minister involved in this sorry tale to be Einstein or a computer whizz who understood what was going wrong. But we expect them to show common sense. As the article I linked to above says:

The National Association of SubPostmasters (NASP) has 6,727 members. During the Post Office purge, more than 900 were accused of misconduct, though only 736 were prosecuted. Did it not occur to anyone that, in an organisation whose members were traditionally regarded as pillars of the community, a ratio of one sub-postmaster in seven turning to crime – and, as more and more were sacked, fined or jailed, the offences proliferating in spite of these severe deterrents – was not a credible situation?

I suspect that once the legal process and profession got involved, managers and ministers shied away from asking too many questions either because they thought it was not their role, or because they thought the legal people would establish the truth. IMHO it turns the spotlight onto what the prosecutors and judges knew, and what they were doing about it. AIUI a central plank in all the prosecutions was that each postmaster was told that they were the only ones experiencing missing money, yet that was not the case. How many judges and lawyers heard that argument presented over and over again in court, and said nothing?

Nimrod103 wrote:I don't think anyone expects Vennells nor any other manager or minister involved in this sorry tale to be Einstein or a computer whizz who understood what was going wrong. But we expect them to show common sense. As the article I linked to above says:

The National Association of SubPostmasters (NASP) has 6,727 members. During the Post Office purge, more than 900 were accused of misconduct, though only 736 were prosecuted. Did it not occur to anyone that, in an organisation whose members were traditionally regarded as pillars of the community, a ratio of one sub-postmaster in seven turning to crime – and, as more and more were sacked, fined or jailed, the offences proliferating in spite of these severe deterrents – was not a credible situation?

I suspect that once the legal process and profession got involved, managers and ministers shied away from asking too many questions either because they thought it was not their role, or because they thought the legal people would establish the truth. IMHO it turns the spotlight onto what the prosecutors and judges knew, and what they were doing about it. AIUI a central plank in all the prosecutions was that each postmaster was told that they were the only ones experiencing missing money, yet that was not the case. How many judges and lawyers heard that argument presented over and over again in court, and said nothing?

I've heard it said that prior to Horizon, some of the upper echelons in the PO had suspicions that some postmasters were "at it", but they couldn't prove it.

Once Horizon was installed and seemingly came up with the (expected) evidence, this was an "Aha!" moment.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:I don't think anyone expects Vennells nor any other manager or minister involved in this sorry tale to be Einstein or a computer whizz who understood what was going wrong. But we expect them to show common sense. As the article I linked to above says:

The National Association of SubPostmasters (NASP) has 6,727 members. During the Post Office purge, more than 900 were accused of misconduct, though only 736 were prosecuted. Did it not occur to anyone that, in an organisation whose members were traditionally regarded as pillars of the community, a ratio of one sub-postmaster in seven turning to crime – and, as more and more were sacked, fined or jailed, the offences proliferating in spite of these severe deterrents – was not a credible situation?

I suspect that once the legal process and profession got involved, managers and ministers shied away from asking too many questions either because they thought it was not their role, or because they thought the legal people would establish the truth. IMHO it turns the spotlight onto what the prosecutors and judges knew, and what they were doing about it. AIUI a central plank in all the prosecutions was that each postmaster was told that they were the only ones experiencing missing money, yet that was not the case. How many judges and lawyers heard that argument presented over and over again in court, and said nothing?

I've heard it said that prior to Horizon, some of the upper echelons in the PO had suspicions that some postmasters were "at it", but they couldn't prove it.

Once Horizon was installed and seemingly came up with the (expected) evidence, this was an "Aha!" moment.

Scott.

I admit to knowing nothing about what is involved in being a subpostmaster. Our local subpostmistress ran the village post office for 30 years without (AFAIAA) any problems, and towards the end wanted to retire, but nobody could be found to replace her, until finally the parish council has taken on the role, and now runs it at a loss.
I am not clear how money could have been embezzled. All the PO activities and sales were well and fully documented. Everyone knows the price of a stamp, and there are effective barriers at the counters, so unless there was an armed hold up, I fail to see how anything could disappear.

Nimrod103 wrote:I admit to knowing nothing about what is involved in being a subpostmaster. Our local subpostmistress ran the village post office for 30 years without (AFAIAA) any problems, and towards the end wanted to retire, but nobody could be found to replace her, until finally the parish council has taken on the role, and now runs it at a loss.
I am not clear how money could have been embezzled. All the PO activities and sales were well and fully documented. Everyone knows the price of a stamp, and there are effective barriers at the counters, so unless there was an armed hold up, I fail to see how anything could disappear.

But they don't just sell tangible goods, they provide services as well.

Hypothetically, let's say they charge £5 for validating a passport application form. With a manual system, there might be a suspicion that the sub postmaster could do a validation and pocket the £5 without putting it through the till.

Post-Horizon, the system might have a "hiccup" and invent a phantom passport validation transaction. There's now a £5 hole in the accounts, and no evidence one way or another to show whether it really occurred or not.

Scott.