Anyone just watched Mr Bates v the Post Office? *GNHQ tweaked the title*

I met an ex-work friend yesterday, and we spent time over lunch talking about the issue (we live dangerously😄) and what we do not understand is that as auditors, we were aware of a number of software accounting systems, both big and small, and the company’s who used which system. We also were aware of the various systems weaknesses and took this information into account when instructing our computer officers to extract certain information from the system.

However, one lot of evidence may prove that the trader was fiddling the system, but this would need to be corroborated , but if this happened at a number of traders then alarm bells would ring.

I’ve heard some of the inquiry today, questioning of Stephen Bradshaw who was employed by the Post Office since 1978 . He investigated the post office/horizon scandal.

He did not impress me in any way. He seemed to take no responsibility for anything. He wasn’t told by senior staff about problems with Horizon, he claimed not to be technically minded, when pushed on the statements he submitted he said the lawyers wrote them.

I thought he was most unimpressive witness, Iam64. Quite honestly, he didn't seem overly bright and I wondered how he could have been elevated to such a position.

DaisyAnneReturns

Doodledog

Whitewavemark2

Yes, I can certainly confirm that Fujitsu is used by HMRC - it is 20 years since I worked for a revenue dept. And it wasn’t known for its stability back then.

Oh great. And they are going to have access to everyone's bank accounts before long. I wonder how many pensioners and benefit claimants will be jailed for fraud, based on the fact that it is 'impossible for employees to alter their records'?

I have been saying this Doodledog. I can't see how "guilty till proven innocent" won't happen all over again to, in some cases, more frail and less knowledgeable people.

I suspect it will, but have been accused of paranoia for saying so.

I hear rumbles of discontent that a universal finding of innocence will include those few who, allegedly, did actually defraud the Post Office. My concern is that the innocent majority might therefore always feel that a cloud of suspicion lingers over them.

I hope this will not be the case - they’re entitled to feel that they’ve been completely exonerated.

icanhandthemback

I thought he was most unimpressive witness, Iam64. Quite honestly, he didn't seem overly bright and I wondered how he could have been elevated to such a position.

He wasn’t hired for his brain to investigate the postmasters. He was hired for that job because he’s a bully.

A good discussion on The Rest is Politics in which RS explains much more about the computer system and gives insight into how Parliament reacted.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dye_PteQnAo

(It's near the beginning)

If you keep watching TRIP they go into procurement- stunning.

Petra, it certainly looks like it. I wonder why the Post Office don't have to interview potential fraudsters using taped evidence? This must surely be rectified.

A new petition has now started regarding Fujitsu:

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/hold-fujitsu-to-account-for-post-office-scandal?bucket=email-blast-11_1_2024_&utm_campaign=11_1_2024_&utm_medium=blast&utm_source=email

Just a reminder of my last post, that not only do Fijitsu still run the Post Office because the software is integral to the functioning of the system. BUT....

In the last 10 years the Government has awarded Fujitsu 191 contracts totally £6.5 billion including the MOD, HMRC and the Home Office.

So it seems Fujitsu virtually run the country.

You need to take that in. I'm not sure what it will mean if we have a falling out with Fujitsu.

If you go back to my post this morning you will see that Fujitsu wasn't responsible for the development of the IT system. It was ICL, which was later taken over by Fujitsu. I haven't had a chance today to look at this more closely but I'm just wondering if Fujitsu might use this as a way to evade some of the blame, because they didn't develop the system.?

MaizieD

If you go back to my post this morning you will see that Fujitsu wasn't responsible for the development of the IT system. It was ICL, which was later taken over by Fujitsu. I haven't had a chance today to look at this more closely but I'm just wondering if Fujitsu might use this as a way to evade some of the blame, because they didn't develop the system.?

Fujitsu took over ICL in April 2002 (almost 22 years ago) so they have had plenty of time to come to terms with the system and its defects

I agree, Cold, but I'm not sure what their position is in view of the fact that they didn't do the initial development. I might be completely on the wrong track...

Just finished watching on catch-up last night. The whole thing is horrifying! What really got me is the way people were told that there was nobody else having the same problem. Not just a lie, but a cruel lie. I’ve signed the petition about Fujitsu.

Delila

I hear rumbles of discontent that a universal finding of innocence will include those few who, allegedly, did actually defraud the Post Office. My concern is that the innocent majority might therefore always feel that a cloud of suspicion lingers over them.

I hope this will not be the case - they’re entitled to feel that they’ve been completely exonerated.

That is why I think they should NOT have to sign a statement of innocence and why they should all receive an honour at a well publicised local ceremony.

More of what you are unlikely to find in your right-wing press.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU0qo8P2Y48

This is the latest from The New Statesman about Fujitsu, outsourcing and much more. As always, knowledgeable and we'll researched.

My public service employer switched to Fujitsu - the it system was simply dreadful. One example of many -I’m finished and saved a 40 page report. It disappeared from my screen. Phoned Fujitsu support - yes of course I’d switched off and logged in again, result - entire report lost and needing re-written. Try telling a High court judge the computer ate your homework

Iam64

I’ve heard some of the inquiry today, questioning of Stephen Bradshaw who was employed by the Post Office since 1978 . He investigated the post office/horizon scandal.

He did not impress me in any way. He seemed to take no responsibility for anything. He wasn’t told by senior staff about problems with Horizon, he claimed not to be technically minded, when pushed on the statements he submitted he said the lawyers wrote them.

He was terrible. Came across as totally unprofessional in the way that the security department conducted its investigations. He even admitted to the inquiry that he did not write his own "witness statements" in the criminal cases that were prosecuted on the basis of his "investigations" but claims he merely signed statements from the Post Office's lawyers.

Exactly trying to get out of any responsibility. He was investigating fraud. He’s trying to say he didn’t know what he was doing.

Surely it must be perjury to prosecute someone on the basis of a witness statement that you didn't write?

This is one of the major issues that arose by allowing the Post Office to be
- the alleged "victim" of fraud
- yet also the financial beneficiary as the fake losses were not really losses at all and this money that couldn't be traced by the system to a sub-post office were placed into suspense accounts and then later taken by the Post Office as "profits"
- the criminal investigator of the "thefts" they had suffered
- the prosecutor - with bonuses to staff for successful prosecutions

Stephen Bradshaw signed his witness statement. That’s entirely his responsibility. It’s not good enough to try and slither out of responsibility.
Lawyers give advice to their clients, they also give advice as to the likely outcome if a case goes to Court, they may also advice on the best way to,prepare a case. Even in the legal department did prepare Bradshaw’s statement(s) he would be expected to read them and correct anything he wasn’t happy with before signing it.

Wheniwasyourage

Just finished watching on catch-up last night. The whole thing is horrifying! What really got me is the way people were told that there was nobody else having the same problem. Not just a lie, but a cruel lie. I’ve signed the petition about Fujitsu.

Good grief, don't you realise Mr Bradford only meant that nobody in that particular sub office had had problems. What's more, as he wasn't told that there were problems with Horizon from the top, he didn't need to investigate that or disclose that there were other people saying that as part of their defence. 🙄

What a way to run a railroad.

Just spotted this on another website so I'm quoting what someone else said:

Something that I found interesting was that when The Post Office asked for bids for a new computer system, the Horizon system failed on 7 out of 11 things they asked for....but it was the cheapest!

Once again, failure is rewarded which seems to be the way things are done today.

i wouldnt be surprised if some senior/procurement bods at PO trousered large amounts of dosh/ inducements from Fujitsu for choosing them.
That would be the icing on the cake.

The whole scandal is truly jaw droppingly shocking.