POL00152708
POL00152708
From: Karen Wightmanf”
Sent: Fri 31/07/2015 1:44:32 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce:
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama
Dear Mark,
I realise there was an error in the penultimate sentence of my previous email to you, it should have read — “If
we do not hear from you by Monday, we will take it that you are happy for us to summarise your position
from the material you have provided to date.”
Jim Gray’s email address ig.
He has been consulted during our recent correspondence and is across all of the issues raised by you and my
responses to them.
In the meantime, as I have already said we would be grateful if you could let us know by Monday if you intend
to respond to the allegations we have raised with you by way of a recorded interview or a written response.
Yours sincerely,
Karen Wightman.
On Behalf Of Mark R Davies
From: Louise Chatfield
Sent: 31 July 2015 09:45
To: Karen Wightman
Cc: Matthew Bardo; Mark R Davies
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama
Dear Karen
Thank you for your response.
I would be very grateful for the email address for Jim Gray.
Iam very disappointed at Panorama’s failure to provide any evidence for the serious and unfounded
allegations it is making.
Yours sincerely
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
1st Floor
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
POL00152708
POL00152708
London EC2Y 94Q
From: Karen Wightman [
Sent: 31 July 2015 09:06
To: Mark R Davies
Cc: Matthew Bardo
Subject: BBC Panorama
30" July 2015
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your letter of 28" July, but I think we have already responded to the issues you have raised.
As I explained in my letter on Monday, we will take all the information you have provided into consideration
when finishing the programme. I also explained that the BBC does not normally provide evidence in its right of
reply process to support the allegations that it is reporting. Throughout our approach has been in accordance
with BBC Editorial Guidelines. It is my job as Acting Editor of Panorama to ensure that those guidelines have
been correctly interpreted and followed. Having reviewed the work of the programme team, I am satisfied that
they have been.
Matt Bardo has already explained in his email of 23" June why a demonstration of Horizon would not be
appropriate. The fact that it is working well at a particular moment does not demonstrate that the system never
makes mistakes. A similar point applies to your request that we interview postmasters suggested by you.
While many postmasters are happy with Horizon, that does not mean the system always works perfectly.
Our programme is about the postmasters who have blamed the computer system for their convictions. We
understand, and will make clear to our viewers, that most postmasters use Horizon without any problem,
thereby fulfilling our obligations of impartiality.
I think the two comments you have highlighted from a contributor, about bullying and Paula Vennells, are
worthy of consideration for inclusion in our programme. As I understand it, the context for the comments is as
follows:
The Post Office set up a mediation scheme in part because MPs from across the country were unhappy about
the way postmasters had been treated. One hundred and thirty six postmasters have been accepted into the
mediation scheme and twenty have been accepted for review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
(CCRC). The Post Office promised to get to the bottom of the allegations and employed its own independent
experts to investigate. The experts have since criticised the Post Office in Parliament and accused it of
withholding important documents from their investigation. They also concluded in their final report that there
were cases where “criminal charges have been brought which appear to have been motivated primarily by
Post Office’s desire to recover losses.” MPs are still unhappy — as evidenced by an adjournment debate in
Parliament on 29" June — and have strongly criticised the Post Office for the way the mediation scheme has
been operated. They say they have lost “faith and trust in the Post Office’s willingness to investigate the issue
properly and thoroughly”’. Even the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Post Office still has questions to
answer. He told Parliament on 1* July that: “/ would hope that it would not be necessary to have a full
independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue, but get to the bottom of it we must.”
POL00152708
POL00152708
In this context, I believe the two highlighted comments are relevant, but we will consider your response before
making a final decision on their inclusion.
I do not accept that we are trying to pre-empt the CCRC’s decision or that our motive for commenting on
these matters “must be seriously questioned”. It is a matter of significant public interest that twenty
postmasters who claim they have been unfairly prosecuted by the Post Office have had their cases accepted for
review by the CCRC. We are perfectly entitled to examine some of these cases on Panorama. I have reviewed
the documentation that we are using in the programme and I am satisfied that it is not being taken out of
context.
T can now tell you that a working title for the programme has been agreed. It is “Trouble at the Post Office”. I
have also just been told that the programme has been rescheduled and will now go out on August 17".
We didn’t receive a response from you by our deadline last night. However, in order to give you every
opportunity to explain your position, I am willing to extend the deadline for your statement or interview until
Monday 3 August. We need to receive your response by that date because we will be completing the
programme next week. If we do not hear from you by Friday, we will take it that you are happy for us to
summarise your position from the material you have provided to date.
You asked for the name of a senior manager with responsibility for Panorama. For your information, the
manager responsible is the deputy head of Current Affairs Jim Gray.
Yours sincerely
Karen Wightman
Acting Editor
BBC Panorama
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: Finsbury Dials, 20
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
Je SR ID ISHS I IO IIS IDO III III IO ISIS IID ION III IIS III II IIIA.
http://www.bbe.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of
the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.