To draw your attention to Mr Bates vs The Post Office

When you give power to people not trained or equipped to deal with prosecutions, you get people like Stephen Bradshaw.
This is coupled with the fact he sounds as think as mince.

I doubt Stephen Bradshaw would have had the intelligence to pass the police selection process, yet he was instrumental in sending innocent people to jail.

It absolutely must be the police and them only that can investigate people with these types of cases.

They're rerunning the 2020 File on Four about this on R4 now (I think that's what it is)

The Keith thing comes from when one of his PR staff tweeted his name as Keith by mistake and is used by all the Keir haters.

Not exactly the same thing, but intended to insult and put someone in his/her place, I would say. I read that George Osborne very understandably hated being called Gideon so decided to change to George, which I think was his grandfather's name, when he was about 13. I've always been irked by people refusing to accept that and calling him Gideon on the spurious pretext that otherwise it might not be obvious that he is the son of a very wealthy family and had a very privileged upbringing. I don't think anybody hearing George Osborne speak could ever be in doubt about his origins, even if he'd chosen to change his name to Kaleb or Jayden. I don't like the man, but come on - people are allowed to choose their own names.

I assume anyone deliberately calling Keir Starmer Keith is trying to cast doubts on his socialist credentials by refusing to give him the same name as Keir Hardie, or trying to make him sound dull, or both. Equally silly.

So, not the same thing at all!

Some people did the same to George Osborne by calling him Gideon. I think he was baptised Gideon but uses George.

I had assumed it was a typo/autocorrect thing but sounds like it might be intended as an insult.

Because the CPS was only involved in a few of the prosecutions. I think it may have been 13 of them. And I think there were other factors in those cases which meant that they weren't necessarily to do with Horizon.

Edited: I see a pp has said it was 11.

Why do people call Starmer "Keith"? Is it supposed to be an insult?

In my opinion it's either because they are too thick to remember his name, other are trying to be derogatory as it's usually accompanied by a seemingly innocent comment about how awful Keir Starmer is for not taking responsibility for everything that has ever happened.

To be doing this on a thread about people who have lost lives, livelihoods, years, pensions, careers is fucking disgraceful. Rather than politicising about this issue, they should be focusing on ensuring the victims are supported, repaid and compensated.

Correction: 11 cases were brought when KS was DPP, but only three resulted in convictions.

Three cases were brought by the CPS when Starmer was DPP. So it is very likely that he nothing about them.

Why do people call Starmer "Keith"? Is it supposed to be an insult?

Keir, not Keith.

Most of the prosecutions were by Post Office. The CPS could have taken over, but the long standing convention was that CPS didn't interfere in Post Office prosecutions. However, it now seems that a significant number were conducted by the CPS. Given the volume of cases handled by the CPS, it is unlikely Starmer was aware, but it means he potentially has questions to answer. But I'm not surprised the focus is more on Ed Davey. He was a lot closer to it and definitely has questions to answer. His refusal to apologise is, at best, foolish.

That article above also has the horrifying detail that, shortly before 1999, the law was changed so there would be an assumption that computers were "reliable" unless proven otherwise - ie the burden of proof was reversed so a defence had to prove an accuser's machine was unreliable. (Not exactly easy when it's someone else's computer and you don't have access.)

Turns out this was lobbied for by... the Post Office.

That law is currently still in force. God help us all under AI:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged

How is Keith getting away being so quiet on this despite being on top of the civil service justice tree while this was going on?

Thanks for that link, @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/14/a-tragedy-is-not-far-away-25-year-old-post-office-memo-predicted-scandal

One of the (many!) chilling things reading it is where the Post Office set up a circular argument.

The PO got convictions in a few early cases by assuring the judge there was nothing wrong with Horizon. They then used these cases to say there was nothing wrong with Horizon, it was always SPMs being dishonest... as proven by the fact SPMs had been convicted.

@prh47bridge mentions:
Nick Wallis says that he has been told off the record many times that many in Post Office still think the subpostmasters got lucky, that the judge was trying to make a name for himself and that there was clear evidence that Bates et al were trying to deflect from their own personal failings.

This is reflected in the BBC's account of how the Post Office tried to suppress their reporting. Each time one of their tactics failed, the PO escalated.

Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743

The Post Office's lobbying did secure them a further meeting, this time an off-the-record briefing with the programme's then-editor. Such meetings are viewed with suspicion by many investigative journalists as they can be used as a tactic to hamper inquiries and publication.

So it proved in this case. The Post Office took the opportunity to smear some of the sub-postmasters Panorama was planning to feature in its programme, hinting at potential motives to steal from the tills.

In one case, it falsely claimed it had documents showing a postmaster was guilty of theft. But it said it would only show them to the programme team if they promised not to share them with anyone else - which meant Panorama would not even be able to discuss them with the postmaster who had been accused.

Panorama refused.

Thank you, I have found it now. Thanks also for the link to the judgement, which I have started reading.

There is a precedent for the auditor being stung for its collusion. The Enron scandal brought down accounting firm Arthur Andersen:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen

Look for Anthony Blair. His witness statement is at https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/896/download?token=knA1N1zT

Does anyone know why Tony Blair's evidence isn't visible on the inquiry website? He is listed in the dropdown of witnesses but a search returns a blank. The BBC definitely said he had given evidence.

For those interested in how the legal system got it so wrong, this article from David Allen Green is an interesting read - How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses - and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice (substack.com)

I'm watching a local TV programme about water. I sincerely hope that directors of our water companies are taking note of the unfolding PO horrors and are beginning to cast around in the hope that they too have installed a computer system which they can blame for their greedy, grasping incompetence. If we're calling such people to account, may the water companies be next in line.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/14/a-tragedy-is-not-far-away-25-year-old-post-office-memo-predicted-scandal

Good grief, it just keeps getting worse. Thanks for that info and all your other posts, @prh47bridge.

I worked as an auditor for a big chartered accountancy firm in the 1980s. I haven't worked in that field since then, but would be surprised if anything has changed in this one respect - auditors of large companies and other organisations check very few transactions indeed. They rely on the design of the accounting system. A good system, well run and adequately staffed, should make it difficult to get something wrong and those errors that do get through should be picked up and put right quickly. Fraud and theft should be very difficult to commit. Any organisation big enough to have its own internal auditors would normally be expected to need a lot less work from the external auditors.

The trouble is that many organisations are not well run and their accounting systems are not well designed and operated. The Post Office seems to be an outstanding example of this.

Also, auditors are not truly independent and that compromises their ability to tell the truth. In theory they are working for and reporting to whoever owns the business, not the directors, but they are appointed and re-appointed by the directors, who are responsible for preparing the accounts and therefore for any errors. If the auditors criticise the directors they could lose the audit, and audit fees are enormous.

Very rarely - in the case of a scandal as big as Mirror Group Newspapers pension scheme being robbed by Robert Maxwell without the auditors raising the alarm, for example - a big firm faces some sort of disciplinary process, strung out for years, ending with a fine for the firm which is a drop in the ocean of their massive profits. Then they just carry on as before.

I believe the external auditor for the Post Office for many years was Ernst & Young. PWC have the job now. Will E&Y face any sort of legal action or did they manage to cover themselves? There's usually some let out.

Richard Taylor, Post Office Director of Communications, has been suspended after tapes emerged of conversations in 2020 and 2021 (i.e. after the courts had ruled in favour of subpostmasters) in which he suggested that the campaigning subpostmasters were probably thieves, that the judge had found that there was no evidence Horizon had caused discrepancies (on the contrary, the judge was clear that Horizon did cause discrepancies) and that the quashed convictions of subpostmasters was getting too much media coverage.

Nick Wallis says that he has been told off the record many times that many in Post Office still think the subpostmasters got lucky, that the judge was trying to make a name for himself and that there was clear evidence that Bates et al were trying to deflect from their own personal failings.

I'm not surprised that many in Post Office are in denial, particularly those who were closely involved. If they genuinely believed they were doing the right thing, they won't want to admit to themselves that they were instrumental in ruining the lives of innocent men and women. However, their continued presence in Post Office stops the organisation moving on and doing the right thing.

Taylor should be sacked, but many more need to go. I agree with those that say there needs to be a complete clear out of the Post Office board, senior management and many in middle management.