To draw your attention to Mr Bates vs The Post Office

I've just looked up Jarnail Singh and found a piece on Nick Wallis' "Post Office Scandal" website from Dec 2023:
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/more-singhd-against-than-singh-ing/
Giving evidence over two full days, Singh revealed himself to be an exceptionally dangerous man, inhabiting a fantasy world manufactured by a priceless combination of the Peter Principle and the Dunning-Kruger effect. He was also self-defeatingly slippery to such a degree that when he was asked if he was the Head of Criminal Law at the Post Office, his answer was:
“I wasn’t head of anything, to be honest with you. I just went in as a challenge, as an opportunity and I can reassure you I was not Head of Criminal Law. I think the outside world did, probably did [think I was], because I was the only criminal lawyer and I think originally they wanted Rob Wilson to go in, and at the last minute he dropped out, and I was put forward and I think in the last minute, in the last… I think this post was on 1 April 2012 and I think I was more or less told the end of March, probably the middle of March, “Do you want it?” And I considered it, went to see Cartwright King, I liked it and I knew it would be tough, so I took that opportunity as a challenge and that’s what I did.”

This week:

Tuesday 30 April - Hugh Flemington - former Head of Legal at Post Office Ltd, Harry Bowyer - Barrister and former employee of Cartwright King Solicitors

Wednesday 1 May - Martin Smith - Solicitor and former employee of Cartwright King Solicitors

Thursday 2 May - Martin Smith - Solicitor and former employee of Cartwright King Solicitors

Friday 3 May - Jarnail Singh - Solicitor and former lawyer at Royal Mail Group and Post Office Ltd

For anyone who is unfamiliar with Jarnail Singh, you're in for a "treat". He's one of those witnesses where as soon as he starts responding to questions you go "ahh, I can see how the scandal happened".

Whether in schools, workplaces or outside, bullying gets amplified once it's deemed acceptable. Organisations that bring private prosecutions invariably reflect this RSPCA, councils, Post Office, parts of HMRC have all 'gone rogue' at various points.
Stephen Bradshaw demonstrated a crude 'getting even' attitude that made the results of his interviews a foregone conclusion. He and van den Bogerd both behaved duplicitously in interviews; he by saying that nobody else had experienced issues - which he says meant nobody in the room/branch, she by saying Post Office couldn't change records - because Fujitsu did so on their behalf.
I can't find the exact quote, but IIRC, in answer to a question as to whether an investigation could be paused, the lead Ofsted inspector told Ruth Perry's inquest that he probably could, but had never had to. He was wrong before and after the fact.
I would advise anyone facing the possibility of an investigation to study these tactics to understand the style and nature of questions and to the self-serving nature of many people who enjoy this line of work.

I mentioned before about how some of those post office staff didn’t seem particularly intelligent or articulate.
Infact earlier on during he enquiry one of them , Stephen Bradshaw seemed a total
dim wit.
Probably spent his entire career bullying people and just generally unpleasant.

I remember thinking that there was no way this go would have made it through to the Police , yet this guy had the power to prosecute people.

I imagine some of these prosecutors were police rejects so did this job where they had some authority over people.

I've often pondered the fate of those who find themselves constantly promoted upwards, not as a reward for talent but because they are difficult to work with and can't be moved out of the way by sacking them. Now I know.

It struck me that there are a fair number of people who've given evidence to the Inquiry who would struggle to find employment elsewhere, at least at a seniority level and salary level they have/had at the Post Office.

Yes, this has really leapt out at me. They've climbed the greasy pole within the organisation by being very good at the internal politics (sucking up, punching down), and saying and doing exactly what their superiors at each point want.

Van den Bogerd struck me very strongly as being sharp enough when she wanted to be (had no trouble adopting court language and talking about business concepts in the language she must use in high-level meetings), but flicking between that and presenting a dense, woolly facade with lots of "little ol' me" bullshit that it had all been too technical and difficult for her to grasp the import of remote access.

It struck me that there are a fair number of people who've given evidence to the Inquiry who would struggle to find employment elsewhere, at least at a seniority level and salary level they have/had at the Post Office.

Institutionalised in a corrupted organisation into accepting people doing the bare minimum and doing it badly and where going outside the path of least resistance would get you into trouble.

I'm not sure that many terrible decisions don't have the common root of responsible individuals 'going with the flow' in corrupted organisations

They do. You know better than to put your head above the parapet. If you have the wherewithall you leave and find another jobs, but it's not always that easy so you put your head down and get on with your own work and hope you won't be asked to do anything too heinous.

However, that doesn't apply to top brass who should absolutely say "this is unacceptable, sort it out" and act with integrity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c88z431n2v5o

The widow of a sub-postmaster who took his own life had to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the Post Office in exchange for staggered compensation payments, an inquiry has heard.

I guess we should be grateful that they weren't using WhatsApp or they'd have to be telling us how their texts have mysteriously disappeared and can't be found.One less thing to lie about.

I don't remember.

I didn't see that email.

This was not part of my job.

The dog ate my home work.

Not knowing or forgetting is not acceptable, this is the reason the people at the top get the big money, to take responsibility.

In this digital age you leave a trail wherever you go, everything can be found if you don't want to hide it.

Are they really so lacking in self awareness that they don't know how they are coming across?

I would hope this ends with those responsible doing significant prison time and the removal of their pensions and property " earned" while they were in charge and used to provide decent pay outs to the victims.

The bullies certainly all use the same self-righteous cant about "public money" to quiesce the feeble squeaks of their consciences.

While having no qualms about accepting bonuses out of public money or using public money to destroy their targets.

Compensation should come from Post Office, but the scale of this scandal is such that paying proper compensation to all the victims would bankrupt Post Office. The Government is therefore having to step in and provide funds to cover compensation. However, the total compensation bill is minute compared to government spending generally - less than 1%. This is at the noise level in government accounts, so is highly unlikely to affect the amount of tax the government raises.

As I understand it, any compensation for the situations the victims are in that is caused by the actions of a Government "controlled" agency will come out of the public purse, which means if the public purse is not big enough to pay it then it means raising taxes to get the additional funds. Which flies in the face of the current Government's policy/aims to reduce the tax burden on everyone.

I'm not sure that many terrible decisions don't have the common root of responsible individuals 'going with the flow' in corrupted organisations.
DWP always conflates its underpayments and overpayments despite this meaning some people getting nothing and others being paid many times over, HMRC appears to have been formed to avoid senior Customs & Excise employees having their collars felt over the London Bond scandal, it now seems clear that the Department of Health sacrificed haemophiliacs to save money.
Elsewhere; NASA lost two space shuttles because raising concerns early was career-threatening in their toxic culture, Boeing falsely blamed pilot-error in the Lauda Air case many years before doing the same after the 737-Max disasters, BP followed the Union Carbide and Exxon playbook with Deepwater Horizon and paid a hefty penalty when things unraveled.
In the Post Office case, the Simon Clarke letter indicates the negligence of ministers, senior civil servants, direct and indirect employees and directors of the Post Office - many of whom lied in public, some under oath.
The mass-pardoning is no kind of justice and if the government can't afford to compensate its victims, why not give them beneficial ownership of the Post Office?

To be clear, the cause of the problems is very different in the Carers' Allowance situation.

It's the DWP's attitude and behaviour towards the people affected – and towards anyone trying to draw attention to the problem – which is so very, very similar.

Completely different... yet strangely reminiscent...

A DWP whistleblower working in the Carers' Allowance section repeatedly raised the issue of inappropriate prosecutions by the DWP, first internally, then with MPs, then by writing to the CPS suggesting judges should be provided with the NAO report revealing the DWP's massive incompentence.

So the DWP sacked him.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/25/hailed-hero-sacked-carers-allowance-whistleblower-dwp

(For anyone interested, the below article explains a bit about Carers' Allowance, and the below MN thread has posters' experiences:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/why-are-so-many-carers-taken-to-court-for-benefit

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5049094-to-think-the-carers-allowance-scandal-shows-the-uncaringness-of-the-dwp?page=1
IIUC Carers Allowance is a relatively small amount of money for people doing over 35 hours a week care for a disabled person. The rules around it are peculiar. First it is means-tested, rather than simply being for the 35 hours a week. Secondly, the means-testing is neither on gross pay, nor on net pay, nor on annual pay, but rather on some complicated DWP calculation which sometimes allows certain expenses but sometimes doesn't, includes hypothetical pension contributions even when these don't exist, and is calculated over such intervals that someone can easily fall foul if their pay comes through a day early or late.

The third peculiarity is that if the DWP-determined nominal income in any particular week is over the limit, the Carers Allowance is removed completely for that week. Not reduced by the amount over the limit, but completely removed.

Unsurprisingly, the above often goes inadvertently wrong – and immediately creates a debt of the entire amount of the Carers Allowance for that period. The DWP are aware of the earnings and the debt, but instead of dealing with unwitting over-earnings immediately have been letting the debt build up over years and then prosecuting people and confiscating assets under Proceeds of Crime legislation.)

My god that woman has ‘selective memory’ - it’s unbelievable how many communications she didn’t see, cannot remember seeing, and her unrelenting question-dodging and cold as ice manner is infuriating. How anyone keeps calm listening to her, I do not know.

Hahah they're annoyed by her failure to keep her voice up.

Can't hide annoyance at 3pm on a Friday 🤣

The letter that's now being read is 2015, denying that remote access is possible. She said earlier today that in 2013 she asked for a remote access transaction to be given its own non-SPM id.

Mr Beer KC made that comparison yesterday when her answer to one of his questions contradicted what she said at the court trials.

"Genuine's doing some pretty heaving lifting there" oooof. Stealing line

Edward Henry KC is making the point that AVDB can't change her tune now from the evidence she gave to the High Court because to do so would open her up to be convicted for perjury. And so she is unable to give truthful answers to the Inquiry.

Jason Beer KC is done with his questioning. That means they're dedicating the entire afternoon for harsh questioning from counsel for the core participants.

He's done the same thing today with asking her repeatedly that Ron W said he had "strong evidence of a miscarriage of justice"

She's so full of shit