BBC News has found the ‘reluctant’ ex-PO lawyer. She doesn’t seem keen to respond…
3 Likes
Saw that - interesting to learn that JM is an oz citizen.
If charges are brought, let’s hope her name is added to interpol list, meaning most international travel would be restricted and may also result in oz authorities acting.
Is there an extradition agreement with oz - likely so?
2 Likes
I’d happily send her back. 
PS yes it would be easy to force her back we share the same common law.
5 Likes
Likely not a warm welcome here, but it would be a good development.
Nine hundred plus SPM is a real travesty, being falsely accused (ignoring the odd bad apple).
The dignity of those SPM interviewed and taking prominent roles in maintaining the momentum, without being in any way dramatic, is a tribute to their human dignity. Painful though the experience has been for all. Any lawyer should show the same dignity and integrity to acknowledge the truth.
The actor who played Alan Bates in the documentary, paid credit recently to the SPM stoicism and lack of rancour, in seeking that truth.
5 Likes
…and things continue to unravel around the operation of the Board, as informed by Alice Perkins’ (former Chair) testimony to the SI. More ‘I wasn’t told’ and ‘I wasn’t aware’ words, with acknowledgements that key points were missed and matters not joined-up as they should have been.
Given the level of dysfunctionality evident from other testimony, it’s just all more fuel to the fire of incompetence and poor governance.
2 Likes
Or extremely competent legal advice helping them deny any intention by ensuring they know exactly what they have to admit to due to documentary evidence, while claiming that they didn’t understand the implications of what they read or, in some cases, wrote.
1 Like
Perhaps the reintroduction of the Tudor Act of Attainder together with interviews conducted by Messrs Cromwell and More might help to restore failing memories 
.
ATB, J
5 Likes
Have just caught up with the morning’s questioning. It’s almost at the level of ‘how do you defend stupidity’, as it’s beyond naivety. Deeply unimpressive today IMHO. Red flags galore, yet nothing joined-up, again (just for a change!). Jason Beer was remarkably restrained given the plethora of evident shortcomings. As for notes made at the time not reflecting the intent and true nature of exchanges – that’s a new one.
One has to ask how a career civil servant, with little/no experience of commercial businesses or legal and IT matters, was selected to oversee such a complex business.
4 Likes
4 Likes
Thank you for that , I am continually amazed at the things I am seeing on YouTube
Question from Mr Beer KC , “There was a £ 40, 000 shortfall in the accounts, what do you think caused that ?”
The immediate answer from the Procurator Fiscal
“Embezzlement”
It was almost like Matthew Hopkins judging people suspected of witchcraft
3 Likes
A good analogy Ian.
1 Like
The sentence is death, now what’'s the charge?
2 Likes
IMHO, this is the best TV going at the moment – it’s beyond surreal. It’s like watching a car crash in very slow motion. Why on earth was a General Counsel with no experience of IT and litigation matters given the task of commissioning an external review of Horizon – and then is prevented from briefing the Board, and then, unsurprisingly, gets binned when the outcome isn’t welcome.
4 Likes
Watched and listened a fair bit today, many of the red flag events were repeated, with the need to suspend disbelief on so many occasions. Lots and lots of words, chucking the former Legal Counsel under the bus several times. Unbelievably, it appears Perkins lectures on corporate governance. You just couldn’t make some of this up. There simply wasn’t an adequate risk and controls framework in place, allied to a culture of adherence, with clear elevation procedures – and all this is set down and must be managed-down from Board level.
3 Likes
Caught-up with some of AP’s afternoon testimony and I’m not going to watch/listen to any more of this clown show. The PO’s governance construct was so fatally flawed e.g. internally it was so wanting, and you cannot describe in literal terms a business as being run on an arm’s length basis when you have a former civil service Chair (heavily engaged in managing the politics around the business), the organisation was reliant on continuing heavyweight financial support from HMG, and when the PO Executive massively prioritised concerns about reputation & brand so far above concerns for the well-being (holistically) of their SPMs. In a simple summary, post the RMG float, PO was equipped to fail and it did/has, the latter only precluded by its public ownership.
5 Likes
I wonder what,( if any) the legal implication of so many of these people being ( indirectly) government employees.
Are we looking 
At Misconduct In Public Office?
Ian
1 Like
AFAIK, POL remains a private limited company with the single shareholder ultimately being HMG i.e. us. As such, the directors are subject to the governance and terms of the various Companies Acts, Insolvency Acts (close!) and other criminal legislation around things like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice/perjury, and the legal beagles engaged by PO (internally & externally) have their own professional rules and codes of conduct (e.g. via the Sol’s. Reg. Authority) – noting how many involved in the prosecution chain had little/no experience of criminal law – white sticks all around then.
I strongly suspect no prosecutions will emerge, save perhaps, trying to pin perjury on Jenkins – noting he has yet to give evidence and is scheduled to appear later this month (noting (I think) he has rights not to self-incriminate). I’d define most findings to date to evidence incompetence in role, hubris and straightforward stupidity in not joining dots.
The rest of them I’m afraid, at least to my ears, have, in general, offered up defences of ignorance, shockingly poor judgement, of lacking business intelligence and intellect to see ‘big picture’, and things like ‘it wasn’t my responsibility’. From what I’ve heard the past 2 days or so, AP completed the recipe for disaster and, giving balance, it hasn’t been revealed (did I miss it?) why she was appointed to establish a fresh Board with only a 2-days a week time allocation, when the PO business was crying out for more commercial ground-up governance and experience as the path to privatisation (PV as a new and highly inexperienced CEO too).
There were some telling observations from Jason Beer yesterday, when he remarked, rhetorically, about people in the PO Exec and higher management team not always performing to their roles e.g. how the company secretary became embroiled in so many other things well > remit, and the PR recruit (turns out a former ‘special adviser’ to Jack Straw (Mr. Perkins!)), appears to have often dictated the stance, even PO policy(?), on Horizon.
It’s truly, truly sad, and I’ve not heard any positive nuggets, noting also the revolving door of senior management (inc. General Counsels) coming and going – in itself, this is a major red flag. Cameron’s (new CIO) and MacLeod’s (GC) painted pictures of the internal goings-on, culture and absence of proper risk & reporting controls are highly informing IMV, also around Perkins’ effectiveness.
I’m hoping Sir Wyn sees it fit to go higher up the chain, as whoever was supposed to be person-marking POL within HMG, and whoever set this construct up, also have questions to answer IMV. Bricks laid on quicksand, and metaphorically speaking, instead of draining the ground and commissioning a thorough review of Horizon, they simply denied the bricks were sinking.
Perkins said yesterday that she did ‘lift the rock’ early doors in her tenure. I suspect the lawyers are still holding back their incredulity at that remark.
4 Likes
Thank you for such an exemplary reply
Best wishes
Ian
2 Likes
@TheKevster - Great post. Thanks…!
I did like this, about the PO -
’ A completely batshit corporate mentality…’
1 Like