To be absolutely aghast after watching Mr Bates v the Post Office

[Vistada]

I binged all of this in one go, no spoilers (although the current state of play is easily findable...)

AIBU to be absolutely aghast that this happened, and happened for so long.
Absolutely dystopian!

This is only comparable if Allegra Stratton was the Prime Minister at the time.

What happened to her was a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter and a disgraceful example of bus driving from the government.

Paula Vennels was the CEO - the buck stopped with her. She is anything but a sacrificial lamb.

The problems with Horizon have been in the public domain for a long time now. What is shocking is that it had to take a TV programme like this to make people sit up and acknowledge the injustice here.

Exactly.

What she did was awful.

But it we fall for the simple story a lot of other culpable people and organisations get away Scot free.

@Vistada believe me, I am as anxious to see anyone guilty of wrongdoing found out, and if appropriate, punished. But as another poster pointed out, we can't have trial by TV drama and start locking people up based on public opinion. If there is found to be criminal behaviour, then a prosecution should be pursued, and punishments dished out accordingly. Like I said, I'm glad the CBE was handed back as it is obvious that at the very least she didn't deliver what she received the award for. But, at long last, do this thing properly. We owe that to the postmasters and the general public.

I think there was a certain degree of sense in the PO being the prosecuting authority in the days where sub postmasters kept their own accounts on paper. There was a sufficient detachment and arms length relationship between those keeping the accounts and being fully responsible for them (ie the SPMs) and those auditing them (the PO). The PO bringing prosecutions cut out the need for the CPS to have to gen up on matters the PO already had expertise on, thus saving money and time for the taxpayer.

Once Horizon was introduced, however, there was a clear and obvious conflict of interest. The SPMs were no longer solely in charge of their accounts - the PO were too via Horizon. The detachment was gone. The PO was heavily invested, both politically and as a business, in Horizon being beyond reproach in every way. Coupled with the PO's practice of denying SPMs legal representation and access to their own records, the conflict of interest and potential prejudice to any prosecution was clear. Why none of the likes of Ed Davey, Paula Vennells et al, plus the judiciary, could not see this conflict is completely baffling.

She has handed back her CBE which I feel is correct given that she received it for doing a great job, when it is obvious that she didn't, and may have a case to answer on misconduct, possibly criminal misconduct. In my world, honours are not handed out to liars either, but we also don't throw around prison sentences and label people criminals without due process. Of this whole fiasco, careful analysis of the evidence should be our main priority, not a rush to make heads roll.

Paula Vennells is being singled out, because at the point where it was obvious that there was a very real problem with Horizon, after years and years of the same story playing out, and at the point where the PO was making enquiries of Fujitsu about exactly what their tech people were up to, she was in charge. She was also in charge during the failed mediation process, when the SPMs should have been getting compensation and apologies from the PO, but were instead having even more of their time and money being wasted and told they were liars, fools and to blame for what had happened to them. This led directly to the 550 SPMs (a small amount of those effected) having to incur millions in legal fees to get the paltry compensation they have received so far. It should have been absolutely clear to her during her tenure as head of the PO that something very wrong had happened with Horizon - something that may or may not have been apparent to her predecessors too, but was beyond doubt clear to her. She is not being scapegoated as woman, she is being held responsible as the relevant CEO in charge when the problem with Horizon was beyond question.

From the programme, CPS had no involvement as the Post Office were able to bring the charges themselves due to how it was set up as a Royal institution.

He also played John Lennon in Backbeat many years ago. I couldn't believe it when Ian Hart came up on the cast list! But when I took a harder look, I could see it was him.

Fabulous acting all round.

So - does the PO still have the right to prosecute in that way or has that gone?

Don't forget the post office is now seen as the solution to the local bank closures, hopefully the bugs are now gone and the money has already been ring fenced

@AmaryllisNightAndDay It's the right to bring private prosecutions, which everyone has.

No it isn’t. It’s a right specific to certain organisations, the RSPCA has it too. It seems almost certain to now be removed from the PO and any further prosecutions will have to go through the CPS.

@BIossomtoes I undertood from Hansard (linked below) it was a general power under Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. The same with the RSPCA. I had also always understood they had specific statutory powers, until I started reading around this case. Happy to be corrected!

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-02-04/debates/8BAA52F6-3153-46D4-A6BD-8BEA22B6A782/PostOfficeProsecutionPowers#:~:text=My%20Lords%2C%20the%20Post%20Office%27s,to%20bring%20a%20private%20prosecution.

From the RSPCA Prosecutions Policy:

The authority of the RSPCA Council Trustees to institute criminal proceedings pursuant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1932 is delegated to the Prosecutions Department under the control and management of The Chief Legal Officer and Head of Prosecutions.

The RSPCA prosecute offences without the benefit of statutory powers and by way of private prosecutions. The right of a private individual/body to prosecute exists in common law and this right was preserved by Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985.

I certainly want to see Angela van Den Bogerd answer some questions. Along with Fujitsu managers irrespective of their sex.

However, a witch hunt based on a TV programme is not appropriate.

For me the two priorities key are:

• quashing the convictions
• paying out compensation asap.

Given that the PO led the prosecutions they should have all the details and be able to relatively quickly compile the papers. A judge could sit and approve each one allowing the victims to read out an impact statement.

Then we allow the current inquiry to finish its work, possibly extending it to include new witnesses and/or evidence.

Absolutely. That enough should be enough for misconduct in public office. They hound enough little people with that offence so I reckon it fits the bill for a CEO of a government body misleading a select committee. Plus it's indictable and, I believe, an offence at common law so the sentencing opinions are wide

She was quite happy to have all the responsibilities on her shoulders when accepting a cbe and awarding herself, what was it, £2 million a year salary plus the same in bonuses.

anyone and everyone from the bottom to the top that knowingly and deliberately obfuscated and covered this up should be investigated and made to pay the price, in their wallets. It was good enough fir the SPs after all.

Oh I am not disputing that they should throw the book at her (including criminal charges)

I just also want to ensure all the others are held to account too.

And this government is trying to take away what protections ordinary people have, reducing the effectiveness of freedom of information and human rights law.

Whydowomendothistothemselves · Today 16:01

@AmaryllisNightAndDay It's the right to bring private prosecutions, which everyone has.
No it isn’t. It’s a right specific to certain organisations, the RSPCA has it too. It seems almost certain to now be removed from the PO and any further prosecutions will have to go through the CPS.

Anybody can bring a private prosecution, though they are often taken over by the CPS.

Agree
This should be the start of people at the top being held to account, not a box ticking exercise that someone has accepted responsibility and then move on.
The problem started well before she was CEO and was not fully resolved when she left, so while the buck rightly stops with her within that time-frame, there were clearly others aware and in positions of responsibility.

And that's before anyone at Fujitsu comes into the picture. They would surely be equally accountable? Someone must have authorised and persisted with "you're the only one with this type of problem" script at the helpline knowing full well it was a faulty system.

I've only just seen it. Shocking.

I hope some of those in the firing line with all this are men too as it always seems the women get the hate and the men seem to slip under the mat
I am glad she has returned the gong , but it isn't far enough. Making her pay back her pension might help a lot more and I hope some men go down too especially those at the computer company who are worth billions
Heads should roll, men and women involved in this cover up.

I would also like to know why Paula Venners, CEO of the Post Office, paid a massive amount to do her job, got a CBE for what appears to be "just doing her job"

was part of this making a financial success ? And how much of this financial success was due to SPMs paying large quantities to make up imagined shortfalls ? I woUld like to know how much money over this time frame was paid in IN TOTAL by SPMs to make up deficits. It says in the show that's the monies eventually went into PO profits

has PV been successful as CEO on the monies I'll-gotten from SPMs ? Somewhat akin to the highwaymen they originally prosecuted...

I really feel it is time to end bonuses for public officials. Or maybe I can claim £1 million pounds a year in a bonus for doing my public sector essential role ? And have a gong