It was a good programme and I'm glad at the response it's getting, albeit it's crazy it took an ITV drama for the scandal to get recognition as wide as it is right now. Seven stories leading the Telegraph website at the mo'. Saying I didn't like the actual actors who played Bates and his wife.
Horizon scandal - now dramatised as Mr Bates vs The Post Office
- Thread starter MU655
- Start date
I think I saw that over 100 new, previously unknown, effected people have come forward since broadcast.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's good, given they likely suffered in silence all these years.
He was a bit goblin-like and had an almost smug air and she has annoying mannerisms and pretty sure she plays someone dim in 90% of British period dramas. I'm not denying it's one of those irrational dislikes!
I only vaguely remember her from Happy Valley and Broadchurch.
I think she was in some other Sunday night crap my wife used to watch.
Won't someone think of the Post Office and Paula Vennells. Sarah Vine reliably on the wrong side of every argument.
The Post Office scandal is turning into a 'witch hunt': Sarah Vine reveals her fears for ex-CEO Paula Vennells
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arah-Vine-Andrew-Pierce-YouTube-Reaction.html
Won't someone think of the Post Office and Paula Vennells. Sarah Vine reliably on the wrong side of every argument.
The Post Office scandal is turning into a 'witch hunt': Sarah Vine reveals her fears for ex-CEO Paula Vennells
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arah-Vine-Andrew-Pierce-YouTube-Reaction.html
Just watched this. Wow. I knew about it but didn’t think it was as bad as this. 4 people took their own lives. Hundreds imprisoned and hundreds of other had their last and their families life savings taken. That’s unforgivable. Those at the top of Fujitsu and the PO should be imprisoned.
https://news.sky.com/story/post-off...6-8bn-in-public-contracts-since-2012-13045291
Well hopefully Fujitsu is going to have to account for the problems with their accounting Horizon system and become liable for financial recompense. And the quicker the better because it should not all be down to us as taxpayers.
Well hopefully Fujitsu is going to have to account for the problems with their accounting Horizon system and become liable for financial recompense. And the quicker the better because it should not all be down to us as taxpayers.
Panorama did an hour long documentary on this last night. Very well done and absolutely infuriating. Not sure I can be arsed with the dramatised version as well.
In the documentary they said that they assessed a number of different software providers. The Horizon software finished with the lowest ranking of all in 7 out of the 11 categories assessed. But it was the cheapest, so...
Got me excited then, was a rerun of the 2020 episode, I think.
Its worth noting the reporting Private Eye did on this for years and years, whilst this in the public consciousness now PE have been doing great work on this for years.
Private Eye Online | Justice Lost In The Post (private-eye.co.uk)
this piece is great and free ATM as a download
Private Eye Online | Justice Lost In The Post (private-eye.co.uk)
this piece is great and free ATM as a download
It's really good as you'd expect.
Christ Gillian Keegan's husband was UK CEO of Fujitsu 2015-18 and now advises the defence department on dealing with suppliers.
Why am I even surprised by this stuff still?
Can see why Post Office had problems with pricks like Stephen Bradshaw working for them.
It was great. But very very infuriating.
And they have been getting many millions each year since then.
Ah. But none of it was anything to do with him of course. Despite him being in charge of the post office investigations, he was just a low level employee....
Love how he was boasting in his performance review about how he was instrumental in litigation strategy to protect the reputation of Horizon causing a victim to not get a plea deal, but now he says he had nothing to do with decisions about cases.
Plus he never knew what he was signing, while prosecuting people for signing things they didn't understand...
Bradshaw reminds me of Lee Anderson a bit in that they both are horrible cnuts. That's about it.
He was wasn't he.
But when questioned, he used words like...it was just flamboyant language.
Don't think anyone believed it was anything but a lie.
Thoroughly objectionable character.
I don't think people have such an issue that an IT system had an error in it. It's the way the Post Office went after people that was disgusting. That wasn't anything to do with Fujitsu.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article...ow-a-tv-drama-shook-up-britain-in-just-a-week
so sad that it took a tv show to get action on this disgusting business. Poor people that suffered for so long.
so sad that it took a tv show to get action on this disgusting business. Poor people that suffered for so long.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67964064
The Post Office may have underpaid more than £100m in tax while overpaying its senior executives, according to tax experts.
Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Associates says the Post Office paid less tax by deducting payments to victims of the Horizon scandal from its profits.
This could count as a possible breach of tax law, according to experts.
The Post Office said its financial information was "appropriate and accurate".
Corporation tax is paid to the government by UK companies and foreign companies with UK offices.
It is charged on their profits - the amount of money companies make, minus their costs such as staff and raw materials.
While businesses can claim corporate tax deductions for legitimate business expenses, costs related to penalties or fines are not generally tax deductible.
In this instance, the Post Office allegedly deducted the payments made to victims of the Horizon IT scandal from their revenue, resulting in a lower profit and therefore a lower tax bill.
Mr Neidle said: "The non-deductibility of compensation for unlawful acts is a well-known point."
Heather Self from accounting and advisory firm Blick Rothenberg agreed.
"The payments of compensation by the Post Office are almost certainly not deductible for corporation tax purposes, in my view. Not only is it difficult to argue that they were incurred for trading purposes, there is also a general rule of public policy that fines - or payments in the nature of fines - are not deductible."
The BBC understands that HMRC is investigating the way that the Post Office has accounted for the compensation payments and provisions.
In its most recently published financial accounts, the risk of a significant adverse tax ruling is acknowledged.
Notes to the accounts include the following: "As at the balance sheet date the company was engaged in discussions with HMRC regarding potential taxation liabilities that could arise in relation to past events but for which no liability has currently been recognised". It continues "the Directors recognise that an adverse outcome could be material".
Mr Neidle estimates that deducting postmaster compensation from the Post Office's trading profit would mean that it underpaid more than £100m in corporation tax.
The Post Office does not currently have enough money to pay that bill and would therefore, Mr Neidle argues, be technically insolvent.
A spokesman said that HMRC could not comment on specific business or individuals but said: "We collect the tax due under the law, creating a level playing field for everyone and funding public services." The Post Office said its financial information was "appropriate and accurate" and it was in discussions with HMRC and the Department for Business and Trade, which oversees the state-owned company.
Executive pay
While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.
The largest determinant of bosses' pay is a measure the Post Office calls "trading profit", which excludes the money set aside to compensate scandal victims, thereby increasing the pay of executives.
Chief executive Nick Read received a salary of £436,000 in the year ended 2022, plus a bonus of £137,000, as the Post Office was deemed to have recorded an above target trading profit if compensation provisions were ignored.
Mr Neidle said: "Bonuses have been paid to the executive team based on an apparent level of profitability which does not exist. If a public company missed an obvious tax point that made the business insolvent the shareholders would be demanding the CFO and CEOs head on a platter".
----
Usually taking small excerpts suffices, but this story is so rotten and incredulous that there's no end to the scandalous undertaking. This is not only a civil matter but a criminal one too. And for the added touch, it's the tax payer who will be footing the bill for all of this.
The Post Office may have underpaid more than £100m in tax while overpaying its senior executives, according to tax experts.
Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Associates says the Post Office paid less tax by deducting payments to victims of the Horizon scandal from its profits.
This could count as a possible breach of tax law, according to experts.
The Post Office said its financial information was "appropriate and accurate".
Corporation tax is paid to the government by UK companies and foreign companies with UK offices.
It is charged on their profits - the amount of money companies make, minus their costs such as staff and raw materials.
While businesses can claim corporate tax deductions for legitimate business expenses, costs related to penalties or fines are not generally tax deductible.
In this instance, the Post Office allegedly deducted the payments made to victims of the Horizon IT scandal from their revenue, resulting in a lower profit and therefore a lower tax bill.
Mr Neidle said: "The non-deductibility of compensation for unlawful acts is a well-known point."
Heather Self from accounting and advisory firm Blick Rothenberg agreed.
"The payments of compensation by the Post Office are almost certainly not deductible for corporation tax purposes, in my view. Not only is it difficult to argue that they were incurred for trading purposes, there is also a general rule of public policy that fines - or payments in the nature of fines - are not deductible."
The BBC understands that HMRC is investigating the way that the Post Office has accounted for the compensation payments and provisions.
In its most recently published financial accounts, the risk of a significant adverse tax ruling is acknowledged.
Notes to the accounts include the following: "As at the balance sheet date the company was engaged in discussions with HMRC regarding potential taxation liabilities that could arise in relation to past events but for which no liability has currently been recognised". It continues "the Directors recognise that an adverse outcome could be material".
Mr Neidle estimates that deducting postmaster compensation from the Post Office's trading profit would mean that it underpaid more than £100m in corporation tax.
The Post Office does not currently have enough money to pay that bill and would therefore, Mr Neidle argues, be technically insolvent.
A spokesman said that HMRC could not comment on specific business or individuals but said: "We collect the tax due under the law, creating a level playing field for everyone and funding public services." The Post Office said its financial information was "appropriate and accurate" and it was in discussions with HMRC and the Department for Business and Trade, which oversees the state-owned company.
Executive pay
While the Post Office appears to have deducted compensation provisions from their taxable profits, it apparently ignored them when it came to calculating executive pay.
The largest determinant of bosses' pay is a measure the Post Office calls "trading profit", which excludes the money set aside to compensate scandal victims, thereby increasing the pay of executives.
Chief executive Nick Read received a salary of £436,000 in the year ended 2022, plus a bonus of £137,000, as the Post Office was deemed to have recorded an above target trading profit if compensation provisions were ignored.
Mr Neidle said: "Bonuses have been paid to the executive team based on an apparent level of profitability which does not exist. If a public company missed an obvious tax point that made the business insolvent the shareholders would be demanding the CFO and CEOs head on a platter".
----
Usually taking small excerpts suffices, but this story is so rotten and incredulous that there's no end to the scandalous undertaking. This is not only a civil matter but a criminal one too. And for the added touch, it's the tax payer who will be footing the bill for all of this.
Read about this for years in Private Eye and glad it has now got the attention it should have got many years ago.
Has anyone got a technical deep-dive on what the specific bugs were with Horizon? One thing I don’t think the drama or any the docs have quite yet drilled down on is the concept of there being a whole team in Fujitsu aware of many of Horizon’s bugs. That team was constantly looking to cover the bugs up and cook the books from Fujitsu’s perspective, so the Post Office could believe Horizon was robust and blame could be handed down to sub-postmasters, rather than back to Fujitsu.
The Post Office deserves all the blame it is getting, and the senior executives should well face their day in court. I want to really understand though, just how many of the senior Post Office executives really knew how extensive the problems were with Horizon and when did they become aware, and how much did they bury their head in the sand, not scrutinise Fujitsu, and just accept Fujitsu’s narrative, in order to give them plausible deniability to blame sub-postmasters. How much of this was Fujitsu lying to the Post Office, who in turn lied to the sub-postmasters, and how much of this was Fujitsu and Post Office working hand-in-hand to protect their shared interests?
Has anyone got a technical deep-dive on what the specific bugs were with Horizon? One thing I don’t think the drama or any the docs have quite yet drilled down on is the concept of there being a whole team in Fujitsu aware of many of Horizon’s bugs. That team was constantly looking to cover the bugs up and cook the books from Fujitsu’s perspective, so the Post Office could believe Horizon was robust and blame could be handed down to sub-postmasters, rather than back to Fujitsu.
The Post Office deserves all the blame it is getting, and the senior executives should well face their day in court. I want to really understand though, just how many of the senior Post Office executives really knew how extensive the problems were with Horizon and when did they become aware, and how much did they bury their head in the sand, not scrutinise Fujitsu, and just accept Fujitsu’s narrative, in order to give them plausible deniability to blame sub-postmasters. How much of this was Fujitsu lying to the Post Office, who in turn lied to the sub-postmasters, and how much of this was Fujitsu and Post Office working hand-in-hand to protect their shared interests?
So unfit for purpose was this software that no way can either Fujitsu or The Post Office can even vaguely claim not to have known more than enough to make denial and 20 years of victimisation and prosecution a criminal dereliction of their duty of care.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...s-horizon-system-failed-a-technical-breakdown
https://em360tech.com/tech-article/post-office-scandal
I work in a tech area not dissimilar and despite not having an IT qualification I can guarantee that I'd have spotted the flaws and highlighted the risks very very early on - way before the system went live. This was negligence, incompetence or fraud or a combination of 2 or more of those things.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...s-horizon-system-failed-a-technical-breakdown
https://em360tech.com/tech-article/post-office-scandal
I work in a tech area not dissimilar and despite not having an IT qualification I can guarantee that I'd have spotted the flaws and highlighted the risks very very early on - way before the system went live. This was negligence, incompetence or fraud or a combination of 2 or more of those things.
Even Tony fecking Blair knew Horizon was unfit for purpose. I'd like to know who's palms were greased to seal the deal.
Tony Blair was warned about ‘flawed’ Horizon system, memo shows
Documents released by inquiry into Post Office scandal show ex-PM and adviser discussing concerns
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...warned-about-flawed-horizon-system-memo-shows
Tony Blair was warned about ‘flawed’ Horizon system, memo shows
Documents released by inquiry into Post Office scandal show ex-PM and adviser discussing concerns
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...warned-about-flawed-horizon-system-memo-shows
Tony wouldn't do that
I heard an anecdote on 5 Live from one of the post masters who was caught up in this. He was accused of stealing thousands of pounds and was threatened with court. Before it went to court he demanded a hearing and during the hearing, the software was open and performed a ghost transaction in front of everyone at the hearing despite nobody operating it at the time.
From what I could gather, it meant they didn’t bother pursuing charges against him however if you apply a little critical thinking to that - they either knew then that the software had issues and should have applied the same logic to everyone else they were pursuing or it should have been the moment they became aware of the issues and launched a public investigation into it. Instead, their actions were to brush that one under the carpet and continue to relentlessly chase the other post masters fully in the knowledge they were likely innocent.
From what I could gather, it meant they didn’t bother pursuing charges against him however if you apply a little critical thinking to that - they either knew then that the software had issues and should have applied the same logic to everyone else they were pursuing or it should have been the moment they became aware of the issues and launched a public investigation into it. Instead, their actions were to brush that one under the carpet and continue to relentlessly chase the other post masters fully in the knowledge they were likely innocent.
While I do understand the point you are making, there is growing annoyance that thus far, Fujitsu have not made any comments at all on this scandal. The core problem is their accounting system. And you can not tell me that their leadership team was not aware of that.
But next week, the inquiry is going to focus on the Horizon system and Fujitsu are going to come under the spotlight.
How closely have you been following the story? It's got a lot to do with Fujitsu, even though the Post Office are the main baddies.
As far as i can see Fujitsu built a shoddy system that didn't work and tried to hide it from the customer. Sue them, cancel the contract, ask why the customer didnt spot it, whatever you want. None of that is too outrageous in my opinion or even uncommon (NHS IT anybody?).
What takes this to another level is how the Post Office dug their heels in and went after their own employees so aggressively.
Who were these execs at Post Office? Name and shame them.
https://news.sky.com/story/post-off...6-8bn-in-public-contracts-since-2012-13045291
Since 2012, Fujitsu have been given £6.8bn in UK public contracts.
Since 2012, Fujitsu have been given £6.8bn in UK public contracts.
Ironic and depressing.
Yup. That’s my take on it too after watching the Panorama documentary. And the most outrageous part of their behaviour was the way they continued to go after their employees long past the point where they were almost certainly aware the software was the problem. They basically made a decision that ruining these people’s lives was an easier option than having to deal with the fallout of a failed IT system.
Only an episode or so in but who were all the sub postmasters ringing for support and was the genuine or dramatised because surely every support worker lied about being the only caller, and therefore had to know this wasn't localised to one or two people? How are they not liable in some format, at least to be investigated?
It sounds like this was part of a standard support script to me.
But at some point if you're having 100s or calls that are logged I'd assume, the support service would pick up on this?
Of course. Which means it's either incompetence or dishonesty.
It's notoriously difficult to chase intermittent faults, particularly if you're not familiar with the working environment of the end user. The assumption is almost inevitably user error or freak event. Competent support relies on consistent evidence gathering, someone paying attention to patterns and careful investigation when a potential issue is identified.
It's a cultural thing as much as anything though. If blaming the user and ignoring intermittent faults becomes normalised that's what the people answering the phones start to do.
Staff turnover pays into it as well. Answering the first line support phones isn't a great career. Particularly in what was then basically a mainframe company trying to handle microcomputer terminals and EPOS and making some rookie errors along the way.