POL00040952
POL00040952
Message
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 17/03/2015 12:
To: Patrick Bourke
cc: Melanie Corfield I; Rodric Williams [: I; Belinda
Tom Wechsler f ark Underwood1
Parsons, Andrew [A _ I; Amanda A Brown
Subject: RE: Responding to SS' Part I
Attachments: IN CONFIDENCE - SS - 170315 v2.docx
Patrick
Please see slightly amended version attached with some further embedded questions. This is a bit of a rush — hope it
makes sense!
jane
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 17 March 2015 10:51
To: Jane MacLeod
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Mark Underwood1; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: Responding to SS' Part II
Jane
Revised draft attached giving them 2 opportunities to change their report (one now, one after receipt of our detailed
comments early next week), with a final deadline of close 27/3.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 17 March 2015 09:08
To: Jane MacLeod
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Mark Underwood1; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: Responding to SS' Part IT
Jane
Many thanks.
Our detailed report is underway and should be finalised by the end of this week. However, we need to give Rod and
opportunity to input into it. If we get it to him on Monday morning and he is able to prioritise it, we can get the detailed
comments across to SS that same day.
I'd therefore suggest, and I think this is also Belinda’s view, that we effectively give them 2 bites at the cherry ~ one on
the basis of the broad comments in the letter I have provided and a further one following receipt of the detailed
comments. This would lead us to require a finalised report by the end of next week (close 27").
I will review the draft on that basis and return it to you this morning. Do shout if this proposal doesn’t meet your needs.
Appreciate you’re enjoying GE all day (!}, but it would be good to get this out later on if at all possible.
POL-0037434
POL00040952
POL00040952
Kind regards
Patrick
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 17 March 2015 07:35
To: Patrick Bourke
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Mark Underwood1; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: Re: Responding to SS' Part II
Thanks Patrick. I have a few minor tweaks but my main question is a logistical one: it reads as if we are saying we want
their report for 24/3, but our response won't be finalised until after that date? Are we therefore giving them the
opportunity to consider changing theirs ( having seen ours), or are we saying that they should just take account of our 3
generic comments?
I'll get you my comments shortly.
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
The Post Office
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Patrick Bourke <patrick.bourk: wrote:
Jane
lattach an updated version of the letter which, I hope, takes the trick on the points you raised with me ~
specifically, I have tried to position ourselves as willing to assist in a process of improvement of the
Report but which does not occasion undue delay, nor allow ourselves to become too closely associated
with the end product which will, inevitably, remain sub-standard.
have given then until close on Wednesday 24 March, which was the day the report was due to be
discussed by the Working Group.
Let me know what you think. Substantive comments from others welcome too.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 March 2015 18:09
To: Jane MacLeod
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Mark Underwood1; Parsons,
Andrew
Subject: Responding to SS' Part II
Jane
POL-0037434
POL00040952
POL00040952
Following receipt of Second Sight’s report, a number of us met this afternoon to decide how Post Office
might respond most effectively.
The collective view (Sparrow, Comms and BD) is that we ought to register with SS the fact that we think
the Report goes over ground we have already addressed with them, strays in to areas beyond the
Scheme and SS’s professional expertise, and lacks evidence for many of the claims it makes.
However, we feel that there is little to be gained from engaging in a protracted discussion with them on
the precise content. The rationale for that is that:
a) We will never get it into what we might consider to be an acceptable shape;
b) Wewill, in any event, have to prepare our own document to put the record straight which can
then also be sent to Applicants (as we have had to in respect of their previous work);
c) It is so poor that we might want to consider whether we might, at some stage, choose to publish
on the basis that it might illustrate the challenge we have been facing to a wider audience;
d) We need SS to focus on CRRs and individual cases in the remaining time during which we have
some control over them..
If you agree, I have prepared a first draft of a letter for you to send to lan which I attach. It has already
had the benefit of others’ comments but can no doubt be further improved.
I try to work from home on Fridays but if you would like to discuss with me and/or anyone else, I am of
course very happy to dial in. The only time can’t make is 0945-1115.
Best wishes
Patrick
<IN CONFIDENCE - SS - 160315.docx>
SOHO O SOAS IOI IOI ISIS ODI III DOI ASAI SOD I AIS AAI OSI AI
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
terete teeter ett reet ret treteetret treet tert tetec ter terete erat tiry
POL-0037434