NFSP00000710
NFSP00000710
Message
From:
Sent:
To:
cc: Calum Greenhow
Subject:
Hi all
Whilst I concur with Kevin’s suggestion and agree that the reporting is paid for by crowd funding, the case
before the high court is the first of I believe three and thus it would be unwise to pass any NFSP opinion at this
time.
However I do feel that as an organisation we should establish whether we, through reductions in remuneration
or having any improvements withheld, are footing the bill for the very expensive legal costs and if the outcome
is eventually not in POLs favour any compensation.
With a basically flat income stream the only way POL can pay is by reducing costs - us.
Sorry to bang on
Jon
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Nov 2018, at 09:32, thesubpostmaster : = so wrote:
I support Kevin’s approach and I think we should report the bare facts in the news pages as he suggests
(absolutely neutrally). We will lose credibility if we just pretend it isn’t happening.
Just for clarity, Nick Wallis crowdfunded his reporting of the case rather than being paid by CWU — of
course those who support the case will have donated to his crowdfund.
From: Jim Nott
Sent: 14 November 2!
‘evin Whitlock
A>; Calum Greenhow
eter Hall <j
Subject: Re: Articles for the Magazine?
Hi Kevin
I think that would be the best way to approach this action
Thanks
Jim
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Kevin Whitlock <
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 6:08 pm
To: Calum Greenhow; thesubpostmaster; Jon Follenfant
NFSP00000710
NFSP00000710
Cc: Peter Hall; Jim Nott
Subject: Re: Articles for the Magazine?
Hi all
My tuppenceworth with a journalistic hat on. As others have said, it would be
extremely unwise to make any comment, especially as we are a monthly
magazine.
The Horizon case has always been a tricky one for the magazine. I can
understand the sensitivities of the case and the NFSP's relationship with PO,
but I do think we need to - carefully - acknowledge that it is happing when and
as appropriate.
It was reported by BBC Radio 4 and the FT last week and I'm sure that some
members will wonder why the national media has reported the case but their
magazine has not even mentioned it.
I don't think it is appropriate for it to appear in Letters (at least, not until the
present High Court case is completed) but I do feel it is appropriate to report
the bare facts in the news pages, especially as (at least as I understand it) it
focusses on the contractual relationship between POs and subpostmasters.
I also understand that this hearing (due to finish at the end of the month) will
not be the end of things - there's another hearing in March 2019, when the
judge will listen to complaints from individual claimants.
I don't think we should ignore it - especially as the likes of CWU will be all over
this like a rash - maybe a short (and punctilliously neutral) Q&A/explanation
of the nuts and bolts with a timeline, explaining the bare bones of the case to
those not involved but with an interest?
What does everyone think?
K
On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 17:24:48 GMT, Jon Follenfant <
‘n> wrote:
Thanks Calum
If I remember correctly POL put a few million pounds aside in the recent accounts for legal fees and as
this trial and subsequent related trials will run for some time they will end up spending much more.
Without any prejudice to the final result, unless these fees, and if they lose any compensation/fines, are
separately underwritten by HM Government the only place that they can get this money is from us. I
wonder if this could be clarified with POL as I am sure our present members sympathise with the
claimants they will be very unhappy if we have to pay for legal fees and past mistakes by POL.
Regards
NFSP00000710
NFSP00000710
Jon
From: Calum Greenhow <{
Sent: 08 November 2018
To: thesubpostmaster <
Cc: Jon Follenfant
Peter Hall 47 Gi >; Jim Nott
Subject: Re: Articles for the Magazine?
>; Kevin Whitlock {7
Hi Jon,
My view point is that as individuals with personal interest in this case, we want to know the verdict of the
Judge but it would be unwise for us to make any comment at this stage.
I was present today. I would say that we are still at the opening credits of the case so it is way too early to
ascertain which way it will go.
As Lynn suggests acknowledging that the case is being heard and we await the judgement with interest is
the best we should do via the Subpostmaster.
For interest, we received an email yesterday in respect of the case, which was probably the vilest I have
seen in all my working life. I'm sure it won't be the last but we will not be drawn or respond until the Judge
has made his decision.
Calum
Sent from my iPad
On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:28, thesubpostmaster <
Thanks Jon, straight court reporting is difficult as a monthly magazine reporting on an
ongoing court case what we say quickly becomes out of date. Previously our public
stance has been to support PO's position. I think an acknowledgement it is happening
but a neutral position whilst the case is being heard is the most sensible but Calum has
been there today so cc’d to him.
We are aware of the forum you mention — it is perhaps something we could cover as part
of the new bimonthly NC updates cc’'d to Jim for a view.
Finally, please send anything magazine related to Peter — next week is my last week!
Best wishes
Lynn
From: Jon Follenfant [mailtof, GRO, H
Sent: 08 November 2018 1
To:
$; Kevin Whitlock
Subject: Articles for the Magazine?
Hi
Two things:
There is a Forum of POL people and Subpostmasters which meets to outline new
proposals, new kit etc — perhaps a report is needed in the magazine
I have been following the initial High Court case about Horizon problems and the
disciplinary action taken by POL over the years — quite interesting and potentially a
major issue for the POL in the future. It must be costing POL and thus the network a lot of
money in legal fees. Whether we can be that critical in a magazine funded by POL is an
interesting point.
Regards
Jon
NFSP00000710
NFSP00000710