Cycling UK Forum

Just found this:

Conversation on Joshua Rozenburg's blog - According to a Post Office FOI statement obtained by Nick Wallis in 2020 and passed on to me by Alan Bates, the number of subpostmasters convicted in 1991 to 1998 averaged 6 per year. After Horizon, from 2000 to 2013, that number rose to 51 per year.

Assuming there was no sudden frenzy of criminality among the country's subpostmasters, we might reasonably assume, from those figures, that roughly 88% of those convicted were innocent.

And even these stats didn't prompt any senior execs or Board members to ask questions. Anyone in such a role who doesn't ask questions about such a dramatic change in management information isn't doing their job. And that's being kind about it.

Bradshaw, the PO investigator on the witness stand today, reportedly knew in 2009 about the Computer Weekly reports of problems with the Horizon system but didn't allow that to cloud his certainty that SPMs were suddenly stealing money left right and centre.

I look forward to hearing what criminal charges all those culpable in PO and Fujitsu will face.

I look forward to hearing what Paula Vennells has to say on the witness stand. She obviously knew what was happening or she wouldn't have stopped the 2nd sight enquiry.

"The Conversation" is a fine source of impartial information: publishing articles by academics working with journalists.

This piece is an attempt to explain the political derogation of duty regardingthe Post Office:

https://theconversation.com/post-office ... 20politics

freiston wrote: 11 Jan 2024, 4:50pm Whether they were paid bonuses based on the number of convictions or not, being as Posnett said that they were paid (partly) based on the sums recovered after conviction, then it follows that more convictions equals more sums recovered - equals higher bonuses.

I don't think that follows. Let's look at another group of trigger-happy reportedly-deceitful private prosecutors, the train operating companies: most often choose to settle before court because they recover more money than the courts would award them on a conviction. Courts will typically award their actual loss (difference between fare due and fare paid) plus standard legal costs, but keep the fine and victim surcharge for the Crown, whereas a typical settlement before court gets them a higher theoretical loss (typically the full highest standard-class fare for each journey detected, with no credit for any fare paid) plus an arbitrary investigation cost of their choosing (typically £150).

So the sum recovered to the prosecuting company is higher if they don't get a conviction.

But of course, a few big convictions may encourage people accused later to settle before court, so it's not clear-cut.

wheelyhappy99 wrote: 11 Jan 2024, 11:59pm Just found this:

Conversation on Joshua Rozenburg's blog - According to a Post Office FOI statement obtained by Nick Wallis in 2020 and passed on to me by Alan Bates, the number of subpostmasters convicted in 1991 to 1998 averaged 6 per year. After Horizon, from 2000 to 2013, that number rose to 51 per year.

Assuming there was no sudden frenzy of criminality among the country's subpostmasters, we might reasonably assume, from those figures, that roughly 88% of those convicted were innocent.

And even these stats didn't prompt any senior execs or Board members to ask questions. Anyone in such a role who doesn't ask questions about such a dramatic change in management information isn't doing their job. And that's being kind about it.

Do you think the conviction rate was even in the management information? The board still appear to have been asleep at the controls, but I doubt the junior execs were highlighting this to the senior ones. Brand protection seems to have become a higher priority than fairness, throughout the organisation.

Bradshaw, the PO investigator on the witness stand today, reportedly knew in 2009 about the Computer Weekly reports of problems with the Horizon system but didn't allow that to cloud his certainty that SPMs were suddenly stealing money left right and centre.

Somewhere, possibly the Private Eye summary linked earlier, basically said that SPMs were added to the Post Office as a necessity 150ish years ago and have been treated as a third-class part of the Post Office ever since, so when the new system found lots of theft, it was taken as confirmation that the PO's financial woes were indeed the fault of devious SPMs ripping them off, not any organisational mismanagement. Of course, those of us who used the increasingly-shambolic Crown Post Offices (the other main type, run directly by PO) in the early 2000s would find mismanagement easier to believe.

I look forward to hearing what criminal charges all those culpable in PO and Fujitsu will face.

Me too. Maybe some perversion of the course of justice charges for PO investigators or prosecutors and possibly a smattering of fraud charges about avoiding penalties or obtaining bonuses across both organisations?

I have a lot of faith in our court system, but I begin to wonder how much this is justified. Is it really the case that nobody in the justice system noticed a plethora of similar cases ?

Also I did not realise and have just learned that In English and Welsh law computers are assumed to be “reliable” unless proven otherwise. This reverses the burden of proof normally applied in criminal cases. People faced with computer system malfunctions thus have to 'prove' errors without having access to the documentation, data, code and expertise required. Plainly this is neither just nor fair.

This is a huge problem with deterministic systems ( Horizon ... ) but is going to be a catastrophic FUBAR when applied to artificial intelligence.

mjr wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 10:34am

freiston wrote: 11 Jan 2024, 4:50pm Whether they were paid bonuses based on the number of convictions or not, being as Posnett said that they were paid (partly) based on the sums recovered after conviction, then it follows that more convictions equals more sums recovered - equals higher bonuses.

I don't think that follows. Let's look at another group of trigger-happy reportedly-deceitful private prosecutors, the train operating companies: most often choose to settle before court because they recover more money than the courts would award them on a conviction. Courts will typically award their actual loss (difference between fare due and fare paid) plus standard legal costs, but keep the fine and victim surcharge for the Crown, whereas a typical settlement before court gets them a higher theoretical loss (typically the full highest standard-class fare for each journey detected, with no credit for any fare paid) plus an arbitrary investigation cost of their choosing (typically £150).

So the sum recovered to the prosecuting company is higher if they don't get a conviction.

But of course, a few big convictions may encourage people accused later to settle before court, so it's not clear-cut.

But
"Another former Post Office investigator Dave Posnett told the inquiry last month that bonuses were partly based on the sums of money recovered once subpostmasters had been convicted. "

It gets even worse:

"The Post Office threatened and lied to the BBC in a failed effort to suppress key evidence that helped clear postmasters in the Horizon scandal."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743

mjr wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 10:34am

freiston wrote: 11 Jan 2024, 4:50pm Whether they were paid bonuses based on the number of convictions or not, being as Posnett said that they were paid (partly) based on the sums recovered after conviction, then it follows that more convictions equals more sums recovered - equals higher bonuses.

I don't think that follows. Let's look at another group of trigger-happy reportedly-deceitful private prosecutors, the train operating companies: most often choose to settle before court because they recover more money than the courts would award them on a conviction. Courts will typically award their actual loss (difference between fare due and fare paid) plus standard legal costs, but keep the fine and victim surcharge for the Crown, whereas a typical settlement before court gets them a higher theoretical loss (typically the full highest standard-class fare for each journey detected, with no credit for any fare paid) plus an arbitrary investigation cost of their choosing (typically £150).

So the sum recovered to the prosecuting company is higher if they don't get a conviction.

But of course, a few big convictions may encourage people accused later to settle before court, so it's not clear-cut.

I based my response on pete75's post saying:

"Another former Post Office investigator Dave Posnett told the inquiry last month that bonuses were partly based on the sums of money recovered once subpostmasters had been convicted"

ncutler wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 10:45am I have a lot of faith in our court system, but I begin to wonder how much this is justified. Is it really the case that nobody in the justice system noticed a plethora of similar cases ?

Also I did not realise and have just learned that In English and Welsh law computers are assumed to be “reliable” unless proven otherwise. This reverses the burden of proof normally applied in criminal cases. People faced with computer system malfunctions thus have to 'prove' errors without having access to the documentation, data, code and expertise required. Plainly this is neither just nor fair.

This is a huge problem with deterministic systems ( Horizon ... ) but is going to be a catastrophic FUBAR when applied to artificial intelligence.

I haven’t followed this thread but from the little I’ve seen from BBC reports it’s clear to me that the Courts have been mislead, that evidence has been suppressed, that the Courts lacked the ‘scientific’ expertise to rigorous examine the evidence and that the course of justice has been wilfully perverted. As such is the case the Government needs to start a criminal investigation into the whole matter and bring the results to trial. Whether senior managers were lied to or not or simply not informed at all is a matter of debate but someone knows the truth and others failed in their duty to establish hard facts.

The way in which the Post Office sought brand protection ahead of truth is completely unacceptable and speaks (shameful) volumes about of the attitude of that organisation’s management.

Carlton green wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 11:15am

ncutler wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 10:45am I have a lot of faith in our court system, but I begin to wonder how much this is justified. Is it really the case that nobody in the justice system noticed a plethora of similar cases ?

Also I did not realise and have just learned that In English and Welsh law computers are assumed to be “reliable” unless proven otherwise. This reverses the burden of proof normally applied in criminal cases. People faced with computer system malfunctions thus have to 'prove' errors without having access to the documentation, data, code and expertise required. Plainly this is neither just nor fair.

This is a huge problem with deterministic systems ( Horizon ... ) but is going to be a catastrophic FUBAR when applied to artificial intelligence.

I haven’t followed this thread but from the little I’ve seen from BBC reports it’s clear to me that the Courts have been mislead, that evidence has been suppressed, that the Courts lacked the ‘scientific’ expertise to rigorous examine the evidence and that the course of justice has been wilfully perverted. As such is the case the Government needs to start a criminal investigation into the whole matter and bring the results to trial. Whether senior managers were lied to or not or simply not informed at all is a matter of debate but someone knows the truth and others failed in their duty to establish hard facts.

The way in which the Post Office sought brand protection ahead of truth is completely unacceptable and speaks (shameful) volumes about of the attitude of that organisation’s management.

Many say the public sector should be run like the private sector and now the PO is being criticised for doing just that.

pete75 wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 11:42am Many say the public sector should be run like the private sector and now the PO is being criticised for doing just that.

Steve Richards's Rock And Roll Politics show made this very point. Of course, neither party that's held power since 2010 will want to highlight this. Will anyone? Surely all the voters for manifestos that included "arm's length" public service control are in a small way responsible for this scandal?

That said, arguably successive ministers neglected the government's duty as sole shareholder, preferring not to interfere at all, which is not usual. In an ordinary private sector company, some shareholders would have been asking questions at AGMs long before now, although probably not early enough to avoid the scandal entirely, and some shareholders get fobbed off with the concept of "the old settlement" where the shareholder choose a head butcher and then shouldn't ask too many questions about production processes other than how many free sausages they'll get.

Cowsham wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 1:04am I look forward to hearing what Paula Vennells has to say on the witness stand. She obviously knew what was happening or she wouldn't have stopped the 2nd sight enquiry.

As CEO and with such a reputational issue (for the Post Office), if she didn't she didn't warrant her salary and bonuses.

My impression is she maybe suffered the same as Cressida Dick (Met Police) where her strong, default, unthinking, unquestioning stance is defence of the organisation and belief that "her" organisation is so well run it can do no wrong.

Ian

freiston wrote: 11 Jan 2024, 4:50pm Whether they were paid bonuses based on the number of convictions or not, being as Posnett said that they were paid (partly) based on the sums recovered after conviction, then it follows that more convictions equals more sums recovered - equals higher bonuses.

Often it's not a question of "bonuses" but motivation. Do a good job and your career will progress and doing a good job might not be precicly specified not have a "bonus" associated. But if your job is to uncover and prosecute/recover, more you prosecute and more you recover that better you think you are doing your job and more likely you'll get a good pay rise or promotion.

It doesn't always need a "Prosecute <x> people or recover £<y> and you'll get a £<z>k bonus".

Ian

ncutler wrote: 12 Jan 2024, 10:45am I have a lot of faith in our court system, but I begin to wonder how much this is justified. Is it really the case that nobody in the justice system noticed a plethora of similar cases ?
...

I agree but:
1. A plethora of cases could be due to a number of factors eg. increased checking on staff, new enforcement manager who is focusing on job, etc.

2. Is it for the court system to question increasing number of cases? My understanding (and please do correct me) is that the "courts" listen to the evidence and make a decision rather than make their own enquiries. So maybe down more to the defence lawyers? But then sounds like the PO and/or prosecution lawyers may have been withholding evidence. Authoritative independent expert of Newsnight yesterday was saying there are allegations about this that may lead to contempt of court prosecutions as well as lawyers being penalised/struck-off - but he was clear these are allegations and the inquiry will likely get to the bottom of these.

So in terms of failings of the court system I wonder if the failing is the cost of legal representation for defence (legal aid, etc.) which is maybe more a political issue than a courts issue..

Ian