O/T Mr. Bates v The Post Office.

[ramAnag]

Well somebody had to...and it’s a quiet week football wise.

As the country wallows in, totally justified, righteous indignation following ITV’s excellent aforementioned drama I’m just wondering if the more knowledgeable ‘accountancy minded’ amongst us - GP, AF and possibly Swale - can throw any light on how this situation can have been allowed to develop in quite the way it has.

I have some experience of taking on institutionalised corruption, albeit at a much smaller level, and know how hard it can be to overcome the self protecting obstacles that the establishment rapidly erects. This however appears to be at a whole new level and I’m struggling to understand how such an organisation, with its system of checks and balances, could possibly have believed they’d get away with it. More to the point...who has actually benefited and what outcome should we now be aiming for?

Thoughts?

[MadAmster]

1. Quash all convictions immediately with a caveat that, should it transpire that a couple of them actually did "behave badly", they can still be brought to "justice".

2. Repayment of all losses. That includes the amount they were forced to reimburse, losses of income, loss of future prospects of earnings, loss of family (divorce, suicide etc), reparation for jail time, wrong convictions, loss of houses and businesses, defamation and a whole host of other things. All indexed over the years to account for inflation. I would include children of Postmasters who have also been harmed in this affair.

3. The current inquiry names and shames those responsible. Be they "investigators", Royal Mail/Post Office staff at any level from the boardroom to the shop floor, Fujitsu who created the flawed Horizon software, Fujitsu staff, again from the boardroom down, Ministers, MPs... whoever. They should all face the full force of the Law for their part in this debacle.

[Andy_Faber]

The revelations from the ITV drama weren't news to me as I listened to the (excellent) Radio 4 series on the same subject last year

Focussing on your question (MA directs his understandable ire towards retribution), the only logical conclusion to the repeated outcome of the postmasters being found guilty is that 1) The Horizon system was launched without due diligence regarding testing 2) the auditors and associated staff were under instruction to find the postmasters to be at fault and 3) Post Office seniors ignored (they MUST have been aware of) an endemic problem with 'the system'.

I've done a number of fraud audits whilst in industry, and some were real head-scratchers, but most were just employees 'losing the plot' and deciding that the company's money would be better paying for their groceries, pub visits, first class air travel etc (I've come across all) with the accountant's freind, double entry, in essence saying 'money out of company account, money into employee account (or used for employee benefit)'. Such 'losing the plot' employees were guilty of lack of sophistication, not covering tracks etc and were easily caught.

The postmasters would certainly lack such safeguards against discovery simply because they weren't doing anything they needed to hide, 'the system' was. And by extension to that, the auditors should easily discover the nature of the errors, be able to see the double entry, and see that it was going somwhere other than the postmasters' coffers. This should be especially simple as the postmasters were/are required to balance daily, so the volume of transactions would be small

IMO a good INDEPENDANT auditor would have identified the nature of the error in double-quick time.

The auditor I'm listening to on the radio who is holding his hand up as innocent because he wasn't 'technically minded' is waaay off beam, his jobs to report the general nature of the error (laymans terms) and let the techy bods sort it out thereafter, NOT to go chasing innocent public servants. Or it should have been, see 2) above

On a general note, I hope in due course everyone culpable in this, at any level, are held to account by the law

Edit, as I listen to more of the report of the auditors' comments on Radio 4 I get more annoyed about it

[ramAnag]

I entirely agree with MA...although I have no idea how one ‘quantifies’ certain losses...but I’m actually more interested in how, from Andy and Co’s professional perspective, this could ever have been allowed to happen on such a scale.

I can only believe that as AF suggests, ‘a good independent auditor would have identified the nature of the error in double quick time’...so why didn’t they? How did the enormous number of ‘complainants’ about the computer system go unrecognised, and why did Post Office investigators seem to repeatedly lie about individual concerns being the ‘only one’?

I’m not usually one for ‘conspiracy theories’, but there seems to be a particularly grubby ‘can of worms’ here and the seemingly somewhat odious Bradshaw character, who I heard being interviewed this morning is, I suspect, just another pawn in the whole tawdry scandal.

[Andy_Faber]

I can only believe that as AF suggests, ‘a good independent auditor would have identified the nature of the error in double quick time’...so why didn’t they? to repeatedly lie about individual concerns being the ‘only one’?

Independent. Key word. As far as I can see the auditors/investigators were INTERNAL auditors employed by Royal Mail, so no independence and working under the instructions, ultimately, of the head of The Post Office. Statements given to the enquiry so far have included the admission not only that these auditors were given (by who it isn't clear) an instruction not only to go for the subpostmasters but even to go harder for small branches than large ones.

[Andy_Faber]

I entirely agree with MA...although I have no idea how one ‘quantifies’ certain losses...but I’m actually more interested in how, from Andy and Co’s professional perspective, this could ever have been allowed to happen on such a scale.

I think a large part of that question is beyond the ability of mere business professionals to explain. Explain bullying. Explain The Holocaust. Instigator(s), willing executors, victims.

[ramAnag]

I think a large part of that question is beyond the ability of mere business professionals to explain. Explain bullying. Explain The Holocaust. Instigator(s), willing executors, victims.

I think your previous post provided a partial explanation...the lack of ‘independence’ and the ‘instructions’ the auditors were given.
But this has gone on for so long that I’m still incredulous that no one in Parliament from the last twenty odd years, or any decent member of the PO hierarchy (there must be some?), or any of the ‘legal eagles’ who’ve been involved have apparently been able to put two and two together prior to the emergence of a serialised TV drama.

[Andy_Faber]

I think your previous post provided a partial explanation...the lack of ‘independence’ and the ‘instructions’ the auditors were given.
But this has gone on for so long that I’m still incredulous that no one in Parliament from the last twenty odd years, or any decent member of the PO hierarchy (there must be some?), or any of the ‘legal eagles’ who’ve been involved have apparently been able to put two and two together prior to the emergence of a serialised TV drama.

yes, so am I, or rather I'm not SURPRISED, just disappointed. I'm not surprised that no-one in Parliament (apart from 'local' MPS) picked up the cause - Eddie Cochran had it sort of right with 'I'd like to help you sone but you're too young to vote (aka too insignificant to help me get re elected). I'm not surprised that no-one in the PO kicked off, my guess is that any that were aware of this looked at whether kicking off would impact their obscene bonuses, then looked the other way. The 'legal eagles' HAVE been involved but at a price, I'm surprised YOU haven't kicked off about that given your previous on the subject.

All in all its a buggers muddle, and while I'd love to see those truly at fault to be brought to justice, I have a feeling the 'thems' will win over the 'us's' once again and knuckles will be lightly wrapped

One crumb of comfort, I don't tink anything like this could reccur in the social media age

[ramAnag]

yes, so am I, or rather I'm not SURPRISED, just disappointed. I'm not surprised that no-one in Parliament (apart from 'local' MPS) picked up the cause - Eddie Cochran had it sort of right with 'I'd like to help you sone but you're too young to vote (aka too insignificant to help me get re elected). I'm not surprised that no-one in the PO kicked off, my guess is that any that were aware of this looked at whether kicking off would impact their obscene bonuses, then looked the other way. The 'legal eagles' HAVE been involved but at a price, I'm surprised YOU haven't kicked off about that given your previous on the subject.

All in all its a buggers muddle, and while I'd love to see those truly at fault to be brought to justice, I have a feeling the 'thems' will win over the 'us's' once again and knuckles will be lightly wrapped

One crumb of comfort, I don't tink anything like this could reccur in the social media age

Well yes...it did occur to me that the UK today just seems to stumble from one investigation to another merrily lining the pockets of those who can ask pertinent questions politely along the way.

As for the ‘social media age’. We’ve been in it for quite a while and yet I cannot recall a time when politicians and corporate business people have ever appeared so corrupt.

Maybe you’re right and perhaps social media is leading to greater identification of such malpractice...then again, the wrong doers seldom seem to be actually paying the price in the same way that many of these poor PO employees have.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So I guess the cost of a stamp will go up to pay all the compensation. Glad I rarely use PO, but this just means Joe public (or insurers) are equal lisers