I have just watched a couple of videos on YouTube of George Thompson at the Inquiry. What a thoroughly unpleasant man he is.
2 Likes
Yes. You couldn’t imagine THE SPM’S would be queueing up for his support on any matter.
IMV, he came across as a parody of a 1970s trade unionist, all micro, no appreciation of ‘big picture’ and couldn’t recognise a conflict of interest if it was a custard pie and hit him in the face. Put a new perspective around ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds’. @TheKevster had already alluded to his ‘qualities’ some way up the thread, and even Sir Wyn gave up in trying to give him direction.
Just when I thought the POL saga can’t get any worse in terms of bad/poor actors, how wrong was I.
I see the NFSP have issued a statement distancing the organisation from him. Stable door well and truly bolted far too late then.
3 Likes
True - and incredibly damning. The only exception among politicians (AFAIK) who took any interest, was James Arbuthonot.
James Arbuthnot has been a stalwart voice for justice in this scandal over many years and has been the Parliamentary leader.
A few others can hold their heads up, Kevan Jones has been working hard for over 10 years, asking questions in the House and trying to hold ministers to account, his Early Day Motion was important in getting the judge led inquiry, and he stood up for his constituent SPMs and the JFSA.
He was with Arbuthnot as was Andrew Bridgen when they went to see the then minister Oliver Letwin and put the pressure on POL that led to Second Sight being commissioned. Letwin and Bridgen have also been strong voices for the Postmasters since then.
Darren Jones chaired the Select Committee overseeing BEIS (“The Shareholder”’s owning department) from 2020, and did a great job of holding that ineffectual body to account.
So I can think of 4 long-term supporters and one who joined Parliament in 2017, and we should remember that Arbuthnot led a group of 144 MPs who were supporting specific constituents in the mediation scheme, their withdrawal of support was the final nail in that particular Post Office scam. Various MPs have asked single questions in the House, but really it’s those 4/5 who did the work.
2 Likes
Hard though it might be here, let’s try to keep politics and politicians out of the discussion, as per forum rules. Thanks.
Pity we can’t apply that forum rule across all social media.
2 Likes
Apologies Richard, I was trying to keep it to positive statements about politicians who served their constituents and justice without naming any parties, if you think the post is too political please remove it.
1 Like
3 Likes
Not really true… Tony Collins, then (IIRC) investigations editor at CW held off the story because he had only one source (eg Alan Bates).
It is a well-known principle in investigative journalism that a story with just one source isn’t a story at all. In order to make a story stand up, you need multiple corrobarative sources - that’s why these investigations can take years to get going. In the end, Jo Hamilton and others were able corroborate Bates, and the CW team had their story.
2 Likes
A fly was buzzing around Gareth this morning, and someone shouted out “It’s a BUG”
3 Likes
What’s BCS ?
Originally the British Computer Society, it’s the Chartered Institute for IT types.
2 Likes
Thank you , complaints to a professional body are a rare tool to be used , though I think a certain solicitor may be in line for a complaint to the SRA …
best wishes
Ian
I was a member for a few years until I “moved my subscriptions” to the I.E.E.
I listened to much of GJ’s testimony today and, in very shorthand, he came across as fundamentally honest, being a computer boffin who was asked to do ‘off the side of the desk work’ in providing inputs and testimony for POL and FJ, and he didn’t know of the procedural and other responsibilities as are legally defined for ‘expert witnesses’ – although Tatford, POL’s barrister in the Misra case has stated to the SI that he verbally informed GJ of these matters (the same barrister who has already admitted to material oversights in the Misra case).
Incredibly, given the importance of his engagements with other ‘expert witnesses’ and his role in validating Horizon, neither Fujitsu or POL’s legal teams gave him general support and specific guidance on his role – something which has also been admitted by POL’s externally engaged lawyers.
2 Likes
There is a screenshot of Ian Henderson of Second Sight in the post I’m quoting, a couple of eagle eyed posters on the Nick Wallis site commented that if he were entitled to the tie and the badge he was wearing then he wasn’t someone to mess with. Ian Henderson replied in the comments giving the date he got his parachute wings and his SAS regiment.
A p.s. to this:
On numerous times yesterday (Tues), Jason Beer (JB) asked GJ why he didn’t query all the blurb and ‘padding’ which was in the other ‘expert’ reports i.e. would that not have alerted and prompted him that he should be engaged on a similar basis? – to which the answer was he (GJ) didn’t see things like this, as he was employed by FJ and effectively supporting POL – a very understandable train of thought, noting the ‘independence’ of the ‘experts’, not overlooking also they were getting paid, quite a lot one suspects, to produce their reports et al.
JB also asked several times why GJ didn’t reveal/disclose matters which he thought were irrelevant e.g. some known Horizon issues, which GJ was convinced hadn’t arisen in some of the prosecution cases. When JB pressed, the understandable response was ‘I wasn’t asked to’ – now, how often do you hear a lawyer tell you, only answer the questions being asked of you 
…and many giving testimony to the SI have even failed to do that !
2 Likes
Obviously no excuse, but from my IT support days, there were people that just did the bare minimum to get by, and would rarely be proactive. Not saying that GJ is that, but a suggestion perhaps.