POL00338400
POL00338400
Message
From: Angela Van-Den-Boger«
Sent: 05/10/2011 07:48:45 _ .
To: Lin Norbury b. i; John Breeden fo
Subject: FW: Horizon - Private Eye
Attachments: Private Eye Sept 28 2011.pdf
Both,
2 of 2.
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd
Head of Network Services
Post Office Ltd
Ast Floor Admin, Swansea Mail Centre,
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 29 September 2011 16:35
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: FYI: Horizon - Private Eye
Angela — thanks for our time this afternoon. Here is the imminent response to Private Eye regarding their article. I also
attach a pdf of their article.
I'll send a following email with the report I did on this area last year.
Thanks, Rod
Rod Ismay
Head of Product & Branch Accounting, Finance, Post Office Ltd
‘alk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
iwith divert to mobile
From: Mike Young
Sent: 29 September 2011 15:57
To: Paula Vennells; David Simpson; Susan Crichton; Mike Granville; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day; Alana Renner
Subject: RE: Horizon - Private Eye
David
I just spoken to Susan and we are both comfortable with going with what you suggest.
POL00338400
POL00338400
Thanks
Mike
Mike Young
Chief Operating Officer
Post Office Ltd
or {GRO i/ Mobile GRO}
Delivering a Post Office We Can All Be Proud Of"
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 29 September 2011 15:28
To: David Simpson; Susan Crichton; Mike Granville; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day; Alana Renner
Subject: Re: Horizon - Private Eye
Ok thx
From: David Simpson
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 04:07 PM
To: Paula Vennells; Susan Crichton; Mike Granville; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day; Alana Renner
Subject: RE: Horizon - Private Eye
Paula — thank you. I too understand the point Susan made but Shane and I strongly believe it is
important to write to Private Eye. The magazine has made a serious challenge to the integrity of
our IT system and we should be seen to be setting the record straight — even if there is some risk
the magazine will make a sniping comment on our response.
I’m content with the changes suggested by Rebekah (thank you), pasted below. Paula and Mike
Y, if you are content we should send the letter for publication in Mike’s name. Do let me know.
Many thanks,
David
Sir, the Post Office takes meticulous care to ensure the Horizon computer system in
branches nationwide is fully accurate at all times. We do this because public money is
entrusted to the Post Office and our customers and subpostmasters rightly expect the Post
Office to fully account for every penny. We have full confidence in the Horizon system.
There have been a number of cases involving a small fraction of the Post Office network
where court action has been taken over missing sums of public money. The courts have
consistently upheld the Post Office position that the Horizon system is accurate and
reliable. When former subpostmasters have been convicted of false accounting and/or
theft, it is, of course, the courts that have convicted, not the Post Office. In some cases, the
subpostmaster pleaded guilty; in others, the Post Office had to provide robust evidence
otherwise the cases would have failed.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Young
POL00338400
POL00338400
Chief Operating Officer
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 29 September 2011 12:56
To: Susan Crichton; David Simpson; Mike Granville; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day; Alana Renner
Subject: Re: Horizon - Private Eye
Susan, I understand and it's a fine line; but I disagree. We need to be front foot and counter anything that has a
reputational impact. It's goal of mine that all press even local press (perhaps esp local press), should be scoured for
negative comment and refuted.
I would only NOT do so only if in Shane or Alana's view, it is likely to cause more trouble than it's worth.
Paula
Paula
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:08 PM
To: David Simpson; Mike Granville; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Paula Vennells; Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day;
Alana Renner
Subject: RE: Horizon - Private Eye
David — thanks for your email and the draft - my own view and experience I would not write, on the basis that this is old
news and we do not want to prolong the story. Not sure what other people think.
Susan Crichton
Legal and Compliance Director
Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
London
EC1V 9HQ
Telephon
From: David Simpson
Sent: 28 September 2011 18:35
To: Mike Granville; Susan Crichton; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Paula Vennells; Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day
Subject: Horizon - Private Eye
Mike, Susan, Rebekah, the new edition of Private Eye out today has, as expected, ran an article
(attached) about Horizon and the criticisms made by some former subpostmasters. The names
of the subpostmasters featured are very familiar and the claims made against Horizon are the
same ones we’ve seen many times before. The article also mentions Shoesmiths and a possible
legal action the firm may bring — but Shoesmiths have been saying the same thing since the
POL00338400
POL00338400
early part of the year. Disappointingly — but perhaps not surprisingly — Private Eye has not run
in full the very short statement we sent to them.
Shane and I have discussed the article. We think we should write a letter to Private Eye for
publication making two simple points: the fact that it is the courts not POL that convict people,
and (the point we made in our statement) that the courts have upheld POL’s position in each
court case.
The draft could say:
Sir, the Post Office takes meticulous care to ensure the Horizon computer system in branches
nationwide is fully accurate at all times. We do this because public money is entrusted to the
Post Office and our customers and subpostmasters rightly expect the Post Office to fully
account for every penny. We have full confidence in the Horizon system.
There have been a [small] number of cases involving a small fraction of the Post Office network
where court action has been taken over missing sums of public money. In every case, the courts
have consistently upheld the Post Office position that the Horizon records are accurate and
reliable. When former subpostmasters have been convicted of theft, it is, of course, the courts
that have convicted them, not the Post Office, which has had to provide sufficiently robust
evidence of proof otherwise the cases would have failed.
Yours sincerely,
Could you please let me have your views on the letter? If we are certain of the number of cases
that have come before the courts, we could give a number if it is small but I think the difficulty
in the past is that the number is not particularly small or we can’t be absolutely certain of it.
There are also cases where claims about Horizon reliability have been made but the prosecution
centres on other issues. If we get an agreed letter, it could be signed by the Network Director,
Kevin Gilliland, or Mike Young, Operations Director.
Many thanks,
David
Here is the line we sent to Private Eye last week:
The Post Office is fully confident in the Horizon computer system operating in its branches. This accounting system, and
the processes around it, enable our branches to maintain accurate and reliable accounts in all respects, and this has been
consistently upheld when cases have gone to court.