Post Office Scandal

I think I was clear in not judging but saying there should be proper criminal trials - where there is a real burden if proof unlike PO prosecutions, and the test us beyond reasonable doubt. But I was suggesting the punishment of guilty parties should truly fit thd crime, inflicting no less on the perpetrators than their actions or negligence inflicted on the victims.

I’ve listened-in and watched a few hours of the latest questioning sessions and the strings are now being pulled together, and today’s questions should/could be even more interesting.

@Innocent_Bystander - apols, as when I used the term ‘rush to judgement’, what I was alluding to was concrete evidence of criminal behaviour which, to date, I haven’t detected in all this. One of the lawyers suggested there were clear issues with some of the expert evidence given (ostensibly on behalf of the prosecution), but that box hasn’t been affirmed yet as there are obvious doubts as to whether the person concerned was ever formally notified of their obligations to court. The whole thing is, very sadly, a sh1t-show, much through apparent ignorance and incompetence, much of this in the legal domain.

1 Like

I have not recollection of your post.


I didn’t save it to my hard drive (I don’t even know what that is), nor did I print it out (I don’t know how to do that)


Interesting seeing the barristers grilling the barrister today. I love when he was asked if he thought he might have been set up by the post office.

Things are certainly hotting up – save it would be better not to have the grandstanding from some of the questioners – loved the exchange yesterday about ‘is that a statement or a question?’.

1 Like

The level of apparent ignorance by that particular witness, was beyond belief. Even faced with clear evidence of his actions (of reading and printing a particular document), his ignorance continued.

Too Stupid To Be Paid That Much.


Sounds like Jarndyce V Jarndyce in Bleak House

For those that don’t know it’s legal case where the legal fees completely absorb the amount contested

1 Like

I thought that was quite normal?


The tears were flowing today right from the start.

This from Nick Wallis, reporting from the Enquiry about half an hour ago:

I am hearing rumours that former Post Office General Counsel Jane McLoed is refusing to attend the #PostOfficeInquiry and can’t be compelled as she is currently abroad. She was due to have appeared on 4 June. (Phase 5 and 6 Timetable | Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry) she is no longer on the schedule. McLoed took over in 2015, advised Chairman Tim Parker not to share the Swift Review with the Post Office board and was in charge of the Post Office legal team during the Bates v Post Office litigation. She has questions to answer.

Outbloodyrageous! The arrogance of these people!


Part of the Job Spec, it seems.

Post Office Normal.


And amnesia.


How Jason Beer KC keeps his cool is a miracle.


It seems incredible, but Wallis has a good track record of knowing what’s happening (writing as one of his crowdfunders.)
Assuming she returns during the course of the inquiry it’ll be interesting to see if they apply the penalties if she still refuses. The TOR of the Inquiry give Sir Wynn powers to mandate attendance under the Inquiries Act Section 21, with the penalties for non-compliance being in Section 35.

“ (1)The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice—

(a)to give evidence;

“ (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he fails without reasonable excuse to do anything that he is required to do by a notice under section 21.”

“ (5)Proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland for an offence under subsection (1) may be instituted only by the chairman.


(7)A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant maximum, or to both.

(8)“The relevant maximum” is—

(a)in England and Wales, 51 weeks;

(b)in Scotland and Northern Ireland, six months.”


Indeed, and clearly there was some advance knowledge of this likely behaviour given the way the questions flowed. I can understand the lack of recollection about many matters, although the level is perhaps surprising given whatever should jog memories in the pack of papers given to witnesses. One must also recognise that, at face, the IT issues look to be relatively unimportant in scale when tested to the overall level of processing and activity handled. But, as has been said around here many times, it’s how a business deals with issues which defines it, and PO mis-stepped at every level and across every operating discipline – it’s like watching/listening to an AmDram production, where you know what should be said and what the right course of actions should have been, but through ignorance, ineptitude, and other unsatisfactory drivers, they went the wrong way – and when they found themselves wading in a river of legal/quasi-legal treacle, they resorted to obfuscation and denial, even worse the clear massaging of facts.

If the PO management set-up was a building, the only sensible action would be to demolish it, remove things like its ability to prosecute, and completely revise its management architecture.

The media need to be careful here, especially the BBC, as they have broadcast several times that the ~500 prosecuted SPM’s who have had there convictions over-turned are innocent – as I understand, this is not the case. Legally, the position is the prosecution evidence wasn’t robust (vis Horizon) and disclosures and contentions put before courts were misleading.


[quote=“HappyListener, post:58, topic:33634”]
The media need to be careful here, especially the BBC, as they have broadcast several times that the ~500 prosecuted SPM’s who have had there convictions over-turned are innocent – as I understand, this is not the case.
[/quote]as i understand the law the subpostmasters are the same as anyone else: innocent till proven guilty

Words recognised - having re-read, you’re (obviously) right to correct. There are thoughts in some quarters though that some have been very fortunate in all this, in that there were some very clear wrongdoings in play within the SPM cohort.

It’s going to be fascinating to read the output of this SI, as it could make the Encyclopedia Britannica seem like a thin paperback in comparison.

1 Like

Jason Beer has just confirmed this. “We won’t be hearing from her. She lives abroad, and won’t cooperate.”

1 Like

What a cowardly scumbag.