POL00363235_050
POL00363235_050
Page 1 of 4
rou
Mike Granville
From: David Simpson
Sent: 12 October 2011 15:40
To: Mike Young; Paula Vennells; Susan Crichton; Mike Granville; Rebekah Mantle
Ce: Shane O'Riordain; Hayley Fowell; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Chris M Day;
Alana Renner
Subject: RE: Horizon - Private Eye
Attachments: Private Eye - Post Office.pdf
Mike, Paula - the new edition of Private Eye has published the letter we sent to
them about Horizon integrity.
There is also an anonymous letter from a subpostmaster (probably a former
subpostmaster) who has written in support of the magazine's original article. But
there is also another letter pointing out that it is “nonsense” for Private Eye to
have claimed that POL is the only organisation able to run its own prosecutions.
I've attached a scan of the letters page. We will include the letters in the
Newsroom cuttings tomorrow.
David
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
T just spoken to Susan and we are both comfortable with going with what you suggest.
Thanks
Mike
Mike Young
Chief Operating Officer
Post Office Ltd
148 Old St, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
L Jor { “37 MobileI
“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
11/11/2011
POL00363235_050
POL00363235_050
—
Page 2 of 4
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
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
11/11/2011
bee
POL00363235_050
POL00363235_050
Page 3 of 4
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
Ce: 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
Telephone!
GRO
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 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
11/11/2011
POL00363235_050
POL00363235_050
Page 4 of 4
wea
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.
11/11/2011
a a I