Telecon with POL team plus Paula, after Arbuthnot call
IAN
RON
IAN
on 2 July 2013
HENDERSON: ... to lock this down close of play
Thursday, issue it to you for information only, not
on a, you know, sort of a consultation basis on
Friday and, interestingly, he said he felt it was
important that it was done on that basis. He is
adamant or he feels quite strongly that this must
remain Second Sight's report not, you know,
something that is, you know, sort of produced with,
you know, too much alteration from yourselves. But
obviously we do welcome your feedback on factual
matters.
WARMINGTON: We have also stressed how fast moving
some of the four spot reviews still are and, as
a consequence of that, it is quite conceivable
therefore that the interim report will contain what
a week later will be found to be errors, as well as
matters on which we might agree to disagree.
HENDERSON: Yes. I mean, I think the way I put it
is, you know, new information is coming to light.
You know, it's important that we get to the bottom
of these sort of issues and he seems to, you know,
to support that view. So we talked him through his
structure report, and he's happy that we give him
the proposed final version on Monday, and Janet will
take on the role of printing it. What was a bit of
a surprise to me was I asked the question: what is
the status of the report? At the moment we see it
as a confidential report to him and his office, you
know, for use by sort of MPs and so on. His
response was, "Well, I don't think that's
sustainable. There's a huge amount of interest from
the press, media and so on." I think we've got to
accept the fact that this is going to be in the
public domain.
SIMON: Just to let you know, Paula has now joined us.
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
PAULA VENNELLS: Hi, Ian.
IAN HENDERSON: Hi, Paula.
So perhaps the most important issues are really
James' sort of feedback to us. That is clearly an
important sort of point, you know, particularly for
the --
PAULA VENNELLS: Can I just stop you there. So he says
there's an enormous amount of interest. Has he
generated that or is this --
IAN HENDERSON: Well, that's -- you know, between us
girls, I mean, that was the view that was forming in
my mind. He seems to be pushing this. You know, he
pretty well confirmed he's going to prerecord issues
with the BBC and so on. The other thing which you
need to be aware of and consider the consequences:
later today he's planning to have another meeting
with the Post Office minister. Is it Jo Swinson;
have I got the right name?
PAULA VENNELLS: Yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: He's pushing that very hard. He said
that he's already spoken to the Speaker of the House
of Commons but has asked for some Parliamentary time
next week. He initially said or suggested that
Second Sight should issue a press release, and
I said I don't think that's appropriate, and he's
agreed with that. We will issue the report. We
will issue probably an executive summary but, as far
as we're concerned, the report is between us and
James Arbuthnot's office.
SIMON: Hang on a second. Pause there. So he's got
interviews that BBC, but he has not seen any
information about what the report contains?
IAN HENDERSON: No, but he's booking time next week. He
says that he's booked time for a statement in the
House. So again this theme seems to fit in with
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
this, you know, hidden agenda or whatever it is of
him driving this forward. I mean, he's using words
like, "There is a huge amount of interest in this"
"It's important that this is out in the public
domain" and so on, and he's talking about
a statement in the House possibly as early as sort
of Tuesday or Wednesday next week.
FEMALE SPEAKER 1: Okay. So a statement saying what?
IAN
HENDERSON: Who knows.
MALE SPEAKER 1: Any sense at all of what he --
RON
IAN
WARMINGTON: His main theme continues to be the
possibility, whether there exists the possibility of
wrongful prosecution or, for that matter, wrongful
civil action, but he's less concerned about that.
HENDERSON: He's certainly referring to miscarriages
of justice. We've obviously briefed him on the
defect issue, and I don't know to what extent he has
been previous sort of briefed on that, but he seemed
very concerned about that. He didn't, you know,
suggest that it was a cover-up, but he said, "I find
it quite astonishing that it is only now that that
information is coming to light, bearing in mind that
these were, you know, events and so on that occurred
you know up to three years ago."
SIMON: Okay. Just for the record, before the room can
be clear (unclear) written to the subpostmasters
about that and how many court cases we had mentioned
(unclear) if we (unclear) for information only --
LESLEY: -- (unclear) in terms of responding to that,
IAN
can we make it quite clear that that is all in the
public domain? So there's certainly no cover-up,
but it's absolutely in the public domain and there's
certainly been other (unclear) have been through
court cases.
HENDERSON: Well, I think his point was, you know,
until the last sort of few days, he was certainly
RON
unaware of that, and I think there was a feeling,
you know, bearing in mind that this investigation
was set up 12 months ago, there was a lengthy and
protracted build-up to that, you know, why is it
only now that he is hearing about this? Now, you
know that may be a valid point.
WARMINGTON: Yes, he said something like, "They
haven't told me about it", or, "They hadn't told me
about it."
SIMON: I think we ought to register that point.
IAN
I think us discussing it is probably not going to --
okay, can we just keep going then. What else
transpired at the meeting?
HENDERSON: Well, as I say, it was largely us sort of
just briefing him on the structure, you know, the
timing, the logistics, and so on, and then right at
the end -- I mean, he, you know, gave us a bit more
of an insight into, you know, his thoughts, his
plans, and so on, and that's what I've told you
about his meetings with the Post Office minister,
you know, and the fact that he thinks it's very
important that this is out there in the public
domain and is reported to the House. Quite what,
you know, he's going to say, I think, you know, is
speculation to a certain extent.
LESLEY: Coming back to the point that was covered
IAN
yesterday in terms of, you know, be clear -- there
are some process opportunities, for instance,
(unclear: interference) and things that we need to
fix. But the other point around the system itself
in terms of the cases, there's nothing material been
found in terms of Horizon. Was that made clear to
James?
HENDERSON: Well, no, because he like us he is using
this broader definition of Horizon, and I think like
us -- and I know, Simon, you said yesterday we've
just got to agree to differ. I think, if you look
that wider definition of Horizon, if you look the
totality of the user experience, you know, what you,
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
I think, collectively sort of identified as sort of,
you know, process changes, opportunities, and so on,
you know, he is putting more into the category of,
you know, these are, using that definition, sort of
defects in Horizon.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, I mean --
LESLEY: Sorry to jump in but that's not what we talked
about yesterday. So we were absolutely clear
yesterday in terms of how we carve up each element
of the process so (unclear) the system so that we
are absolutely clear where we've got the issues
which we do need to address.
RON WARMINGTON: Lesley, we are crystal clear on that.
However, I don't think you'll find that he cares.
From his viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether it's
the software code or the procedures. Take the
example of spot review 22 and the scratch cards.
The fact that £744,000 worth of TCs were generated
as a result of the procedure, that 20 branches were
audited and £144,000 worth of differences were
attributed to the situation where there existed, as
it were, an air-gap between the Horizon System and
its driver, the scratch card system. You know,
that's -- it doesn't really matter whether we regard
that as a software defect, which it wasn't, or
a Horizon -- sort of narrow Horizon process
deficiency, which it possibly could be defined as,
or whether it's a broad Horizon issue, which it most
clearly was otherwise we wouldn't have changed the
procedure, improved the procedure quite dramatically
by reducing the -- by illuminating the air-gap
between Camelot and Horizon, and thereby sort of
eliminating all that source of enormous quantity and
value of TCs.
As far as he's concerned, if somebody committed
false accounting as a result of that particular
problem, because they had such a huge difference
that they couldn't get to the bottom of it, that
would represent a miscarriage of justice, and that's
what he's trying to get to.
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
SIMON: So in that case I don't think there's any
evidence, certainly not in the spot review.
RON WARMINGTON: We haven't investigated that, Simon,
have we? We haven't investigated the 20 branches or
for that matter the £744,000 worth of TCs, because
it doesn't fall within our sample.
SIMON: There's no evidence that there was.
IAN HENDERSON: Simon, the message is: don't rely on this
narrow definition of Horizon. I think, frankly, any
references to software and so on are not going to
helped your case. James is operating well beyond
that. He, you know, like us is looking at the
totality of the user experience when he's talking
about Horizon.
RON WARMINGTON: To alleviate your concerns, Lesley, we
are making abundantly clear where we have
encountered software issues and, frankly, in the
four spot reviews so far. The nearest you will
get -- and you've conceded this -- is that the
screen and printed messages in the event of the
system dropping to recovery mode and using a mobile
link, and failing to execute in this case half of
the transaction -- the banking transaction went
through, the Horizon transaction did not, but as far
as the customer's concerned it is one transaction.
In that instance, is that a software bug? No, it's
not a bug, but it does, as you've conceded, give an
indication that there could be a better way of
handling it.
LESLEY: A better way of communicating it.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. I mean, here the person did
something wrong, gave out the receipt when he
shouldn't have, before he should have, but the
customer had gone by time the system printed out all
the instructions as to what he should do, and even
if he didn't know how to interpret them -- they're
not very easy to interpret. Trust me, I've tried.
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
SIMON: Would you describe that as a systemic error?
RON WARMINGTON: It doesn't matter. What we're saying,
Simon, is it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how we
describe it. We will describe it accurately, and we
have described it accurately. But in James' eyes it
doesn't matter a damn.
SIMON: For our eyes though, we need to put something
out. We can't conflict with you. So would it be
accurate to say: no systemic errors in --
IAN HENDERSON: Simon, I don't think we can be categoric
like that. Trying to compartmentalise frankly is
going to back-fire on you. That's the message we're
picking up from James' office. He has got no time
whatsoever for these semantic definitions and
distinctions. You know, he wants all of us to stand
back and actually, you know, think about the bigger
picture and the totality of the user experience.
SIMON: I was thinking that maybe what he wants to do.
Is that what we want to do as the Post Office?
RON WARMINGTON: We're the meat in the sandwich on that,
Simon. You know, that may require more than the
planned meeting between your Chairman and James,
which I think is scheduled for tomorrow?
LESLEY: It's Paula and Alwen, I think.
RON WARMINGTON: Oh, is it Paula and Alwen? Okay.
PAULA VENNELLS: I think we need -- I mean, I understand
the message you're giving us. I've (unclear:
interference) semantics. I think there are very
different things here between -- you know,
a systemic problem with Horizon System that brings
into question all the transactions, and the fact
that it is not a user-friendly experience for user
subpostmasters and we need to (unclear:
interference) you know, and I said this yesterday,
the number of transactions we do, the number of
branches that run and the number of complaints that
we've had, even though we've been out and advertised
and been very open about them.
IAN HENDERSON: That's something that's not in our
report, and we want to put in there upfront, as part
of sort of context -- and, Simon, thank you for
those numbers that I think came through this
morning. So we will even open on that basis which,
you know, hopefully will help demonstrate and
explain that what we're talking about is a very
small, you know, proportion of, you know,
transactions and -- you know, that flow through the
Horizon sort of system.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. We're not going to put pictures in
the report, of course, but, you know, one can't help
viewing this pictorially as a whacking great pyramid
with masses and masses of satisfied people and
transactions executed at the base and right up to
the peak, and then a layer of people stealing from
you, and then a layer of people making mistakes, and
then a small layer of that of people who have made
mistakes which they would not have made if the
system had been designed differently. I'm afraid --
SUSAN: Okay, I get that.
RON WARMINGTON: We're dealing with that top of the
pyramid, tiny.
SUSAN: Can I just ask a question which you may wish to
reflect on.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: Are you happy that James uses your report in
this way, because I think he's using it in a way we
didn't anticipate.
RON WARMINGTON: He is taking --
SUSAN: We anticipated that he would use the report, use
your report and -- I mean, I've not seen the report
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
but as I believe it will be written, (unclear)
a balanced view that these four spot reviews and the
use of narrow (unclear) computer, it doesn't -- this
doesn't indicate a systemic problem with our
computer systems, it indicates, and we talked about
it yesterday, a lack of willingness to get
(unclear), a lack of willingness to get feedback,
and to act on it it and a lot of it is historical.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: So, I mean, are you not concerned that your
report is going to be used in a way that actually
you haven't written it to be used in this way, and
it goes to do a lot of damage to our organisation in
a way that's probably not justified(?).
RON WARMINGTON: Well, of course we're concerned about
all those things, Susan, and there does seem to be
a touch -- what I was picking up in the call with
James was a legalistic, cold interpretation of
things. For example, Simon, the agonising work that
you are having to do on spot review 5 in connection
with -- sorry, spot review -- yes, sorry, the
defects issue, where you are trying to say
essentially, "Look, don't worry. We wrote off the
differences and they were tiny in most cases anyway
and some of them didn't affect SPMRs. They affected
people that, you know, weren't going to be hurt."
He brushed that aside, absolutely kicked it into the
long grass, and just said, "It's not relevant."
Okay?
SUSAN: He's not really interested in the facts.
RON WARMINGTON: He's interested in the cold issue of
whether there have been system defects, bugs -- we
haven't used that term -- that have generated
shortfalls which could, during a moment of stress,
in fact, at the end of a trading period, have
brought about a panic-stricken decision to falsely
account. That's where it's coming from. It doesn't
matter whether two weeks later, two hours later, it
was corrected. If somebody was forced by such a bug
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
or one that has yet to be disclosed, the unknown
unknowns that Ian's referred to, to make
a life-changing decision, then that's what's
relevant.
IAN HENDERSON: He also seems to be focusing on what
I call the human element, something that, you know,
hadn't been mentioned since the March meeting. He
asked us, for example, did we know how many suicides
were linked to, you know, sort of Post Office cases,
and so on (unclear: interference) clue. But I just
mention that, you know, in case that also gives an
insight into his thinking.
SIMON: So, if we were to ask you the question, what
would you suggest so -- to me it sounds like he's
got an agenda, right? That's clear now. What would
you suggest is the best course action for Post
Office to take right now?
RON WARMINGTON: I think you need that, you know, really
important meeting with him really quickly. You
know, the fact that, Susan, you came out of the
meeting with the thought that those defects should
be disclosed to him straight away -- I entirely
endorsed that in the meeting yesterday and I
entirely endorse it again -- but I think you would
be ill-advised to do anything other than to paint
that as black a picture as you can; in other words,
to say, "Look, this is it, this is it." But not to
in any way try and sort of minimise the apparent
impact or seriousness, I would say, of the
disclosure that's got to be made. Because he's
questioning, "If you know about it all that time
ago, why didn't you tell me about it?" That's what
he's saying.
SIMON: So I guess the answer is: why would we?
RON WARMINGTON: Well
SIMON: But (unclear).
IAN HENDERSON: I think that is part of his concern.
RON
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
I think he feels that, you know, you've not got the
right attitude, the right approach, the right, you
know, sort of internal processes for dealing with
this. I think he's concerned this is a bit of
a five-minute wonder. If it wasn't for the pressure
from, you know, JFSA, if it wasn't from the
pressure, you know, dare I say, even from this
investigation, you know, how would you be behaving
and, you know, when this is all over, whenever that
is, are you going to revert to type?
I mean, I think he is looking for evidence of
real fundamental change within the Post Office.
That is the closest I can get to identifying his
hidden agenda. I think he feels that the Post
Office is not well suited to coping with these sort
of issues. I may be sticking my neck out, but
that's the feeling I was left with this morning.
WARMINGTON: By the way, we have stressed that how
from the outset we have been -- and it's in the
report -- that, you know, we've been impressed by
the desire to seek the truth. However, we have to
give caution that, you know, we mentioned to your
faces, we do sense also, or we have experienced also
this tendency to try and force narrow definitions
onto things. You know, yeah, this did impact on
people, but you asked if it impacted on SPMRs, and
the answer is: well, it didn't because it impacted
on multiples. That sort of, what might be
interpreted in the press the weasel wording is
extremely dangerous. You know, we haven't used that
phraseology, we haven't referred in the report to
that point, but it came up on spot review 5 also in
answer to the Rudkin issue. You know, we're not
just asking whether people in that basement had
access to live systems, even if your answer is they
did have access to what they called the live system
but it wasn't live, which itself -- you know, we're
having to word carefully to make it sound under than
stupid and, you know, when you say, "They didn't
have access to the Horizon system but they actually
were passing entries to the live data, but you
didn't ask that", that really is dangerous ground.
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
IAN HENDERSON: The other thing that I sensed is he's
been talking to other people about some of these
cases. Now whether that's MPs, whether it's, you
know, direct to some of the SPMRs, but on a number
of occasions this morning he had a level of detail
that frankly surprised me and, you know, seemed to
indicate that he is getting information, he is being
fed information either directly from SPMRs or from
somewhere else.
SIMON: So what sort of information did he --
IAN HENDERSON: Well, for example, we talked about Rudkin
straight sort of Bracknell, and he said, "Well,
I understand that they have got access to, you know,
sort of live data in Bracknell." Now, that's not
the sort of comment that I would have expected, you
know, based on certainly any of the conversations
that we've had with him. We've not gone into that
sort of detail.
SIMON: Do you think that might be from Alan Bates?
RON WARMINGTON: No, because we've never said to Alan
that we think they've got access to the live data
from Bracknell. So unless he's making that up --
I don't know. That's what I warned you about
yesterday, that the last thing you want is a spot
review response that says categorically: there was
no access to live data from Bracknell or, you know,
if you narrow it down from the boiler room in
Bracknell, for somebody -- or from the second floor
which is where the person that we've now identified,
thanks to Rudkin, because it didn't come from your
records, even though we asked you to disclose the
emails, the email that gave the name came from
Rudkin. That's a bit serious.
But what I'm getting at is it's no good having
a response that says: nobody could have had access
to data from that basement because there was no
access to the system, if in a week's time some
bloody whistle-blower pipes up to say, "Well,
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
actually I was working on the second floor and we
routinely did xX."
LESLEY: We've been through this I don't know how many
times. The basement has tech systems in it. We're
about to interview the (unclear).
RON WARMINGTON: Martin Rolf, yes.
LESLEY: We got that name this week and we're going to
interview him, and he was absolutely clear in the
statement that he's given to us, before we put him
in front of one of the lawyers, to say that there's
no access to the data. We are -- as of yesterday,
so another action from yesterday -- (unclear) a
check who has access throughout that whole Bracknell
building.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
LESLEY: We spoke to (unclear) Fujitsu this morning on
that, so we've taken that away to look at.
RON WARMINGTON: Well, yeah. I mean, we've got --
unfortunately it's more difficult even than you could
have feared, because we've got to wind back the clock
to what the situation was in 2000 -- you know, when
Rudkin visited in November 2008, yes.
SIMON: Okay, right.
RON WARMINGTON: It's not easy.
SIMON: So we've got some actions to take from that
(unclear). Is there anything else?
SUSAN: Did James give you any impression about what he
thought (unclear)?
IAN HENDERSON: I think I outlined -- I mean, I asked him
that question, and he responded briefing the Post
Office minister, possibly sort of multiple, you
know, sort of meetings to discuss this, both this
week and next week. The surprise to me was that he
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
has already spoken to the Speaker in terms of
booking time in Parliament, and I think, yeah, he,
you know, wants to push this forward (interference)
quite quickly. Right at the end, I said, "How do
you see this sort of progressing", and, I mean, in
a nutshell, you know, he said he thinks it's very
important that, you know, in some shape or form --
and we don't know what that means -- he thinks it's
important that these enquiries continue.
LESLEY: Just one question: when is he going to be
interviewed by the BBC?
IAN HENDERSON: Probably Friday.
LESLEY: Friday. So that's before he gets the report?
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah.
SIMON: (Unclear) I think we're going down old ground.
We as a team need to sit down and think about this.
You've done what we asked you to do, is relay the
information. Is there anything else you think --
IAN HENDERSON: Simon, one thing you might want to think
about -- I mean, I was planning to deal with the
report sequentially, serially. In other words, as
we discussed, we're going to release bits of it to
you probably today that, you know, we don't think
will materially change. The first full copy of the
proposed final report we'll release to you on
Friday. I wasn't proposing to release that to
Arbuthnot at that point because, you know, obviously
we need to give time for us to sort of consider any
further changes and so on. But it does raise the
question whether we should also release it to
Arbuthnot on Friday so that he's in a more informed
position than he would be otherwise. So I might ask
a question have you got any views on that.
SUSAN: I think we'll get to you on that one, Ron.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, we Can.
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
SUSAN: (Unclear) go out and say you could write
whatever you like in that report, I'm afraid, and
I just don't think it's going to make an iota of
difference to what he says, which is my point to you
about how do you feel about that, because I think
what he says will bear little resemblance to what
you write in your report. How can it be otherwise
if he's going out to talk to the BBC on Friday?
SIMON: Yeah.
RON WARMINGTON: I think we were both struck by the fact
that he was taking a tougher line on this than
I would have expected.
IAN HENDERSON: Bearing in mind the row that we had back
in March over my sort of comments on the meeting,
I mean, if anything, he's taking a far sort of
tougher line than the one that I reported back then,
you know, that I got a bit of a caning for.
SUSAN: Very inconsistent with that approach. He's
changed his position.
SIMON: Okay. Anything else, Ron and Ian?
PAULA VENNELLS: Before that, I think the only question
in my mind at the moment is to try to understand
what might have changed his position. Have you had
any thoughts on that?
IAN HENDERSON: I think it could be this contact with the
Post Office minister and maybe, you know, the bigger
picture in terms of, you know, Parliamentary sort of
discussion vis-a-vis Post Office, and so on, that
that seems to be much more to the forefront of his
thinking than has ever been the case previously.
RON WARMINGTON: Well, he didn't mention one other thing,
Ian, which I hadn't taken a note of and I only just
now remember. He said he was sort of -- he remarked
on the fact that prosecutions were still continuing.
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah.
RON WARMINGTON: I think he expected the whole process to
be kind of frozen while the investigation was going
on even though it's taken a year. He remarked on
that.
PAULA VENNELLS: Okay.
SIMON: Doesn't explain why he changed his mind.
RON WARMINGTON: I think he's angry about that. I got
a sense of a tad of anger from that.
IAN HENDERSON: The other time that I sensed anger was
the whole sort of defect issue, you know, why am
I only now hearing about this now? I mean, there
was a real sense of anger in his voice when he said
that.
RON WARMINGTON: Coldness.
SIMON: Thank you. Does anyone round is the table have
any other questions?
RON WARMINGTON: One other thing. I'm going to take the
position -- I haven't discussed this with Ian --
Tan, we can discuss it out loud here. When it comes
to the press, my position, really preferable is we
want to make no comments to the press until the
final report is issued.
IAN HENDERSON: I'm not even sure at that moment. As far
as I'm concerned, you know, this is a report that we
are doing, you know, to MPs and not for us to
comment .
RON WARMINGTON: Well, it's actually our clients are Post
Office Limited, Paula particularly, and Arbuthnot.
You know, therefore, we're bound by confidentiality
agreements anyway. I'm not thinking that far
forward, but what I am happy to say to the press is:
"No comment, you know, you can wait until the final
report. I'm not guaranteeing I can make a comment
then. The reports will speak for themselves."
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
HENDERSON: I think, Ron, the line we took last time
was: refer everything to Post Office press team.
It's not even no comment. It's just --
WARMINGTON: Yeah.
HENDERSON: -- we need to speak to Post Office comms.
WARMINGTON: That's fine with me.
PAULA VENNELLS: Thanks guys. Bye.
RON
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
WARMINGTON: Thank you.
(Call finishes)
WARMINGTON: Ron Warmington.
HENDERSON: Was that Paula Vennells on the meeting?
WARMINGTON: Yes, she walked in late and she spoke to
us.
HENDERSON: I missed that.
WARMINGTON: No. He said -- I'd sent you a text that
said she was likely to be coming in. He'd sent me
one right at the last -- well, he sent me a text
which I forwarded to you after --
HENDERSON: As in Simon?
WARMINGTON: Yes, yes.
HENDERSON: Only I didn't get that at all.
WARMINGTON: Sorry. It's all I could do because
I was on the line at that point. At 10.33 I said:
"Just got this message from Simon. Bit of a snag.
Will be couple of mins", and then a few minutes
later I said, and this also from him, "Okay. By the
way, Paula will join us (probably) ."
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
HENDERSON: Yeah.
WARMINGTON: And she did. She walked in about five
minutes after it started and she asked a couple of
questions.
HENDERSON: We got the stupid Paula that I don't
like.
WARMINGTON: Oh, yeah. No, this was Paula, the chief
exec.
HENDERSON: I'm glad we didn't pull any punches then.
WARMINGTON: Exactly. All that stuff, you know, has
come out. They are going to have to really wrestle
with this, aren't they?
HENDERSON: Yes.
WARMINGTON: You know, it's -- I think they're --
once again Lesley was trying to sort of defend her
own fucking patch.
HENDERSON: Yeah.
WARMINGTON: And then sacrificing just about the
whole of everything also, and saying, "I don't give
a shit about -- you can say what you like about
everybody else, any other department, but just don't
criticise the software"
HENDERSON: Which is why I was a bit short with her
because I'm getting seriously pissed off with her
approach.
WARMINGTON: Well, we've told them that it ain't
going to work to say that, so that -- it's just
going to serve them really badly, but she seems to
be so fucking dim that she's not understanding that.
I'm sure Paula has taken that point on board
straight away.
HENDERSON: No, I'm delighted that Paula, you know,
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
was on that call.
WARMINGTON: This narrowness of interpretation, she
heard us talk about that too.
HENDERSON: Yeah.
WARMINGTON: A lot of it -- she's heard all the good
stuff. So, okay, well, and I loved the trap you laid
down in front of Alwen, by saying that he seemed to --
I thought: I know where this is going -- you said, "You
seem to be better informed." It wasn't actually
the point you're making, but she must have been -- her
arse must have been twitching when you said that.
HENDERSON: Seriously. How the hell did he know that
there's access to live data in Bracknell?
WARMINGTON: I don't know.
HENDERSON: He certainly hasn't got that from us.
WARMINGTON: I haven't told him that or -- you know,
I haven't even told him the bit about the -- which
I said is kind of laughable -- they weren't any live
systems there even though they said there were.
Right, okay, yeah. Right, got that. That's going
to take some fucking explaining, isn't it? Can you
imagine that, the way the press is going to get all
over that? There wasn't a live system there, but
they called it the live system. It's a tester --
it's just loose terminology.
HENDERSON: Yeah, but actually I don't think that is
the issue.
WARMINGTON: No. I mean, that's going to tie them
even more in knots. If their story is that that's
what it was all about, and then it turns out there
was live data there, it's going to come out.
I mean, I don't know how much clearer I have to make
it to them.
HENDERSON: That's why I was still banging on about
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
this back-office accounting system. I just wonder
whether that is part of the explanation.
WARMINGTON: Yeah, and by the way, as we made the
point to James, what the SPMRs are telling me is
that, when those TCs, those automated TCs come out,
like, right at the last minute in the month, they
have no option but to accept them.
HENDERSON: Except Post Office is saying something
different. They say that there is still this
option.
WARMINGTON: There is an option but they can't
execute it. Armstrong made that point to me. He
said, "If you get a TC coming out the day the last
day of the trading period, you cannot get through to
the Helpdesk, you cannot do anything about
challenging it. You have to just accept it, because
otherwise you are going to be unable to open the
books the following morning."
HENDERSON: (Unclear) over.
WARMINGTON: And the fucking Helpdesk closes at 8
o'clock --
HENDERSON: Yeah.
WARMINGTON: -- as far as I understand. I haven't
checked that.
HENDERSON: No, but we mustn't say that level of
detail on Monday because --
WARMINGTON: No, no, no, no. Exactly, I don't know
that that's true. We won't have time to get off
piste. So, all right, okay. So --
HENDERSON: Right. Now what we need to do I think
(a) we need a bit of a break and --
WARMINGTON: Yes. Then we go through, clean up the
report with the stuff that we've got. Then I've
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
got -- on the bottom of one of my two copies, I've
printed the bits that have got to be added in.
HENDERSON: When do you want to do that? Let's pick
a time.
WARMINGTON: As soon as you're ready. I wouldn't
mind starting at 11.30. It's quarter past 11 now.
Do it at 12 if you like.
HENDERSON: Let's aim for 12.
WARMINGTON: Great, okay. I'll call you then at 12,
and we'll get that cracking.
HENDERSON: Yeah, and yes, because take it to the
next iteration. One thing I did note, that
paragraph that you read out towards the end, or a
couple of paragraphs.
WARMINGTON: Yes, it was a repeat. There was
a duplication in it.
HENDERSON: Those were the paragraphs that you told
Susan we were going to rewrite, because do you
remember Susan said, "I'm not comfortable with that.
I think you're being a bit harsh", and you said
WARMINGTON: Let me just find the page 7 ... yeah.
Did I say that we'd rewrite those? Hang on,
deliberately left out 108BIT. I've actually ringed
it on my version as exec summary stuff in yellow.
I've got other bits where I've changed.
HENDERSON: It was 7.3, 7.4, 7.5. We're certainly
bashing investigations, and Susan said, "I'm
uncomfortable with that", and you said, "Oh, we'll
rewrite that."
WARMINGTON: A bit. Okay, we agreed with Susan to
soften it a bit, soften it at bit. Okay, all right.
HENDERSON: Anyway.
SSLO000128
SSL0000128
RON WARMINGTON: All right.
PAULA VENNELLS: Well, call me at 12.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, will do. All right then. Okay.
IAN HENDERSON: Bye.
(Recording ends)