BEIS0001067
BEIS0001067
From: Elliot Jacobs <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 7:31 pm
TO: es <>: ee
i
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL draft for discussion
Nick,
I have been considering the points raised on our call this afternoon following your unauthorised
release of confidential file notes relating to a call between Saf, Henry and myself. Whether
intentional or otherwise this was not a good thing to have done.
Having re-read the confidential document that was released I do not see anything it which from
my perspective is untrue and it indeed reflects my experience and the feedback from
Postmasters who share their concerns and experiences regularly with Saf and I.
But I am also confused as to why Ben Foat would have been sent a copy of this correspondence
- the VOP email isn't a legal issue? So how did it end up going to him exactly? What were the
covering messages that went with your email to him and] when they received the
email?
The points driving my comments in my private call with Henry and Saf were:
The culture that PMs are "guilty" and "on the take" is embedded in this company and whilst we
continue to employee 40+ people who ensured innocent people were found guilty and who
continue to believe that mantra, this will never change. The review was on!
(who they all report to) and Foat (whose investigation team were supposed to be investigating
the matter) - neither did anything of consequence in this regard and it has been months -
everyone including the "reds" are still employed, on a nice pension and bubbling their anti-
postmaster beliefs around the business. The Board was clear this needed sorting, but nothing
of any consequence has been done with regards to getting them out - not one is even
suspended!
Meantime the "untouchables" (your words) who work in Investigations (run by Foat) investigate
everything and everyone - this is not a normal approach to governance or oversight. My view
that I was deemed guilty until proven innocent is something I had previously told Foat directly.
My reputation was widely and severely tarnished by the way it was handled (without any
confidentiality) and the fact that even until today I have not had a letter confirming the
investigation is closed is again on Foat - as legal have not released a letter yet. That is
disgraceful.
I have told him before that I felt nothing had changed and the approach towards me was
precisely how we treated PMs back in the day. The fact I think that is nothing new to him. The
investigations department is out of control. This reporting line needs to change and the way we
treat PMs and investigate them needs a thorough and proper review - by a PM run oversight
committee.
This business is supposed to be PM centric - it isn't. Now more than ever this is vital. A proper
and significant oversight by PMs is required across this business. The current set up doesn't do
that. It pays lip-service to the cause whilst we continue to be ignored and seen by many as an
annoyance and having us on the Board a necessary but unwanted addition. The fact that Saf's
BEIS0001067
BEIS0001067
email has gone unanswered for over a week reflects badly too and suggests we are not taken
seriously nor being held in the same regard as other NEDs. He is entitled to a reply.
I have reflected on your suggestion that I should call Foat and a to discuss my
comments, I think this will not resolve the matter. You suggested that they might have claims
for constructive dismissal - having reviewed my document I am not sure that is the case. What
concerns me now is that these ‘untouchable’ people may prejudice my ability to scale my
business and cause me to be unfairly treated in the future. On that matter, I will clearly reserve
my position and be watching very closely. Moreover, the information contained in the
document now seems to have been shared beyond these 2 people - and so again my reputation
will be called into question - potentially by even more people in the business than previously.
Changes need to be made and rapid action taken specifically in these 2 areas:
1. Foat's role in charge of the investigations team needs to be reviewed and the entire
investigation process should urgently have proper oversight from a PM-led committee -
no one should be untouchable.
2. Acommittee led by PM NEDs needs to be established immediately with clear terms of
reference to ensure this business is properly PM centric.
In addition to the above 2 actions, I would also request clarity on my questions in the second
Paragraph above - you can to add them to the response which Saf is still awaiting. If you can
respond to both of us by close of business Friday please as I believe it is very important that we
have the opportunity to review your comments ahead of the forthcoming Board meeting.
Sincerely
Elliot Jacobs
Postmaster NED
BEIS0001067
BEIS0001067
Diane Blanchard
ts ae
From: Henry Staunton (1)
Sent: 16 January 2024 19:42
To: Diane Blanchard
Subject: Fwd: Project Pineapple
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please print out .
Thanks,
Henry
Henry Staunton
Chairman
100 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7ER
postoffice.co.uk
I work flexibly — so whilst it suits me to email outside of normal working hours, I do not expect a response during that
time.
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 10:07:41 PM
To: Henry Staunton (1) <r
Subject: Re: Project Pineapple
Sent from Gutlook for iOS
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2024 6:48:46 PM
To: Henry Staunton (1)
Subject: Project Pineapple
Note of conversation with Saf and Elliot on Sunday 10 January
Saf said the views expressed by Richard Taylor , and previously by management and even mem bers of the Board ,
still persisted - that those PMs who had not come forward to be exonerated were "guilty as charged ". Itis a view
deep in the culture of the or; anisation ( inc at Board level ) including that Post Masters are not to be trusted .
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE .
———
nd certain members of his team were singled out . There has been no feedback on the
investigation into [a inc for inappropriate behaviour and lack of integrity ). He was responsible for the
postage stamps debacle where changes were made to accounts by his team just like Fujitsu - if Elliot had not been
on ARC the controls would not have been strengthened . NNNEBnd his team do not want any extension to their
terms of office as they believe new PMs would not have the experience to challenge them .
BEIS0001067
BEIS0001067
Equally Saf and Elliot are FED UP WITH THE AMOUNT OF POWER WIELDED BY FOAT. He and other members of the
senior team act as if PMs ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT ("as per my experience " they both said ) ." No
one believes us " is a constant refrain from PMs .. WHILST FOAT IS AT THE HELM NOTHING WILL CHANGE . We most
‘aisopart cCOmpany with all those Investigators who behaved so terribly with PMs. What on earth is happening if
is still with us - his performance at the Inquiry was a disgrace and reflected terribly on Post Office .
Foat uses his leadership of the Inquiry team as an instrument of his power - it all has to stop . Th is not the
enemy ."" Only PMs can solve this" and tell us howto change . IMS an €x police man . His behaviour has been
unaccéptable and he needs to move on to prove we have changed .
The payment to one of PM of £16 as compensation said it all .
There are some 48 people involved in Investigations . There are over 40 just like i. These people need to go
{ERB 2: 2!0 wed by Foat to go into the long grass . We into one of Saf's stores some years
ago and immediately said “ we are closing you down " . PMs tell him not much has changed since . There is a
complete lack of respect for PMs and that has to change.
—_—=_
As a Board we need to send a signal to the Executive providing guidance and improving the culture significantly. The
current culture was described as “ toxic." ( references to our reaction to fake notes , ATM differences etc etc) . We
discussed a Suggestion that we set up a BOARD Committee on Culture with both PMs on it with one or two others .
It would need to have teeth . It would be outside Saf and Elliot's NED responsibilities and would require additional
rem . It would have the benefit of making us more PM centric . We need as a Board to be seen to grip the situation .
—_—_—__ ~
eS
—————
Both thought there ought to be PM NED membership on all committees inc RemCo . It may be another PM Director
would be needed - but that may be difficult . Wrt rem it was noted that the December bonuses went down badly
with PMs . There were no similar bonuses for PMs . Our generous Sick Leave was highlighted - there are no similar
benefits to PMs . How are we accepting so many people drawing sick leave payments esp in HR.
A lot in this note to consider and take forward with the Board .
Sent from Outlook for iOS