Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The Post Office Scandal

+6
Sluffy
luckyPeterpiper
observer
wanderlust
BoltonTillIDie
Whitesince63
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Go down  Message [Page 14 of 17]

261The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Jun 11 2024, 16:34

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

An interesting morning at the inquiry listening to one of the POL Barristers who defended in the Bates v Post Office trial - 'Tony' Robinson.

Now Mr Robinson deals with civil cases NOT criminal and disclosure issues are different between the two.

He made it clear that his counsel was given on a strictly civil basis - he did not know disclosure rules in respect of criminal cases.

The first thing he asked within a week into being taken on by POL was to ask of his instructing solicitors  Bond Dickinson about whether there was remote access!

He was very scathing of POL in terms of disclosure through his appearance at the High Court trial and beyond.

One of the first things he was asked advice on (before the court case had even started was the 'stopping' of the Chair of POL undertaking the recommendations of the Swift report, which basically would have led to the fact that Jenkins did not give full disclosure and all prosecutions using his evidence would as a result become 'unsafe'.

He advised that in his clients (POL) interest that the Chair should not continue with Swift BUT Swift should be continued by some one else as that would provide the same outcome BUT would become LEGALLY PRIVERLEDGED in terms of civil law.

This privilege would hold in civil courts but may have to be waived in criminal courts.

11.15am: General counsel Jane MacLeod wrote to colleagues in 2016 to say that given proceedings had been commenced by sub-postmasters, the Swift Review should be ended immediately, based on ‘very strong advice from external legal advisers’.

Beer points out the justification for this is not consistent with the email exchange between Parsons and Robinson. Robinson accepts this.


Andy Parson is POL's solicitors instructing Robinson.


Robinson first became aware of Jenkins being 'unsafe' just TWO WEEKS before of the trial defence had to be submitted!

11.40am: The inquiry hears that Robinson was only told about the Clarke Advice in 2018 - and only 17 days before the Post Office was due to file its defence

Robinson says he was 'disappointed' by the process of evidence gathering and says it often felt like firefighting, adding that dealing with the Post Office was 'exquisitely painful' and made it difficult to do his job properly.

11.50am: The big question was whether Jenkins should be called as a witness in the Horizon litigation. He was, after all, previously regarded as the biggest expert on the Horizon system and had been the only prosecution expert in dozens of cases.

In his witness statement, Robinson says he felt at the time that Jenkins was an 'obvious candidate' to appear as a witness for the Post Office.

But this changed after a meeting with Post Office's criminal firm Cartwright King.

Robinson says of this meeting: 'The upshot was that I was told in emphatic terms that Mr Jenkins was not a reliable witness. The solicitors said that Mr Jenkins had given misleading evidence. They suggested in no uncertain terms that I should be very cautious about calling him as a witness.'

12pm: Beer asks Robinson to clarify why Jenkins was not called as a witness in the Horizon litigation. The KC agrees that Jenkins had given misleading evidence and had been in breach of his duties to the court.

But then this: contemporaneous case notes from Bond Dickinson (which by this stage had become Womble Bond Dickinson) admitting that it had been explained to Fujitsu that the Post Office did not want to call Jenkins 'because we did not want to mix civil and criminal justice'.

Beer suggests that if that explanation was given to Fujitsu then that was false. Robinson agrees, suggesting that the form of words was 'ambiguous'. Beer replies that it is a 'bit more than ambiguous' and that lawyers were, on this evidence, not providing a true reason for not asking Jenkins to appear.

12.10pm: In the same case note, it is stated that claimant firm Freeths wrote in January 2019 asking why Jenkins was not a defence witness. The note records that lawyers responded ‘pointing out that Dr Jenkins had acted as expert witness in relation to a number of prosecutions that are being review by the CCRC and it was therefore not appropriate to call him’.

Robinson, who had not provided this information himself, admits this explanation was ‘economical with the truth’ and therefore false.

12.20pm: Despite Jenkins not appearing as a witness at the trial, he was working behind the scenes advising on aspects of Horizon. Robinson says he was dissatisfied at how Jenkins kept 'popping up'.

But despite the discredited witness' work on trial preparation, this involvement was not disclosed to the claimants, prompting heavy criticism from Mr Justice Fraser in his lengthy judgment. Fraser said Jenkins' work behind the scenes was 'simply hidden'.

Robinson tells the inquiry: 'To say I am cross [about the non-disclosure of Jenkins' involvement] is an understatement.'

He explains there was a protocol in place whereby every exchange between Fujitsu and the Post Office's nominated expert witness was to be witnessed and recorded by Womble Bond Dickinson. This in turn should have been disclosed to the claimant lawyers. Robinson says it should 'never have been possible' that Jenkins' role might not be disclosed and he is 'astonished' that it happened.

'Any failure to record the information [passed from Fujitsu] and provide that information to [the claimants] would have been Womble Bond Dickinson's failure,' adds Robinson.



The next bit is interesting Robinson is basically saying he gave a 'nod and a wink [my words -Sluffy] to the High Court judge that Jenkins was an unsafe witness and not used - ie dig about judge and look into what's gone on here in respect of Jenkins in this and other cases!

12.40pm: Back again, this time going to the Post Office's 500+ pages of closing submissions in the Horizon litigation, signed off by Robinson.

Beer takes the inquiry to this passage at paragraph 144 where the Post Office lawyers address Jenkins' absence from court. There is no mention of the Clarke Advice here or admissions about the privately-expressed concerns about Jenkins appearing at trial as a witness.

Beer asks whether the explanation provided here give the true reasons for Jenkins not being called. Robinson says it does. Beer follows up by asking whether Robinson and his team are being open and candid with the court.

Robinson replies: 'It was being made clear there were issues in relation to what Mr Jenkins had said or not said in criminal cases which would have become the focus of attention. In my view that gave a fair indication to the judge of the concerns that Post Office had.'

12.50pm: Beer really pushing at this suggestion that lawyers misled Fraser about the reasons for Jenkins not appearing. He states again that Jenkins was proved to be unreliable and gave false evidence, pointing out that none of this was explicitly referred to in the Post Office's explanation.

Robinson replies: 'Paragraph 144 signals to the judge [the reasons for not calling Jenkins]. It doesn't do so with the emphasis you would probably suggest is required but I do not accept that was misleading. In the eyes of an experienced litigator that would have signalled quite clearly what the real concern was.'

Beer looks aghast, responding: 'Really, you think that signals quite clearly? Is that really what you are saying?'


Robinson basically says that the judge would easily pick out that there is something in this document that stands out like a sore thumb and that would ring alarm bells with him - and it clearly did!!!

Asked later in the inquest why the Clarke advice was not disclosed at the trial, Robinson simply says it couldn't because it was 'privileged' from Clarke to POL (and I'm putting words in to his mouth here but he did the same job by his nudge and a wink to the judge in POL's Closing Submission at the High Court.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-live-lawyer-admitted-providing-political-cover-for-post-office/5119968.article

262The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Jun 11 2024, 16:48

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

I was on the golf course all morning today so I only caught the tail end of the defenders of the indefensible.

What an arrogant sod this afternoon's witness was. Jase the Ace was on form as usual and got right under the skin of Lord Grabiner KC giving him the famous Beer glare on one occasion.
 
Jason's got quite a cult following. Here's the Jason Beer mug that one of his fans has had made for his dad's birthday.
 The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 A4d989937d0e481e19073c1d2e374858e883ce92

263The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Jun 11 2024, 18:38

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Bob, you seem to have watched Lord Grabiner's testimony to the inquiry so you no doubt have seen this...

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 117556_podoc11june_834144

He's basically saying POL is fucked unless they get rid of the judge - agreed?

Why then if all this is REALlY a TPTB, twenty plus year, successive governmental, conspiratorial cover-up, they even wheeled in Lord Neuberger (former president of the Supreme Court) [former top legal dog in the country - Sluffy] to get him to advise POL to seek recusal of the judge (Fraser J) then why didn't TPTB simply fix it when the POL appealed to the Appeal Court against the judge NOT recusing himself, to be heard by a judge that WOULD have UPHELD the appeal and replaced the judge to one they (TPTB) could 'control'???

It seems to me that Grabiner and others (Cavender for one) thought that it was THEY that got STICHED UP INSTEAD!!!

3.55pm: We return, with Beer starting on the day that Fraser refused the application for refusal. An application to appeal would later be dismissed by Lord Justice Coulson. Grabiner emailed Neuberger to say that on first glance Fraser's ruling 'confirms our concern that he is not fit to do the job'. Neuberger replied that this 'sounds like par for the course'.

Grabiner reiterates this was not a personal matter but a view about the calibre of the Fraser judgment.

4.10pm: Beer says the inquiry has seen correspondence involving the Post Office team suggesting there was an ‘inappropriate relationship’ between Fraser and Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Coulson. In one internal email, WBD partner Andrew Parsons considered whether Fraser knew Coulson and had spoken to him in advance before the handing down of the recusal judgment to say that an appeal would be coming. Parsons said in the email he would ask Grabiner about this.

Post Office trial counsel David Cavender KC said in another email to Parsons: ‘It looks very much like this is what Fraser J set up in advance – with his mate the former head of the TCC [technology and construction court, then headed by Fraser] – unless you believe in coincidences.’

Grabiner emailed colleagues to say he had discussed the issue with Neuberger and they shared these concerns.

‘It looks as if Fraser J has been speaking either to the listing office or even to Coulson LJ,’ Grabiner said. ‘Otherwise it would be a remarkable coincidence that of all the LJs presented with the papers they ended up by chance in front of the former TCC judge although this is not a TCC case.’

4.20pm: Grabiner getting a little tetchy with Beer, telling him that he should read out documents in full rather than pick out selected passages. The inquiry sees an email from Neuberger to Grabiner reflecting on their defeat in the recusal application. Neuberger says this is aggravating for a number of reasons but does note that the Post Office refusing to follow their advice about running two appeals together 'gives us an out in terms of our advice appearing wrong'. Grabiner says this was not something that even crossed his mind and that he never considered needing an 'out'.

Beer says he is finished asking questions. Grabiner replies: 'I am tempted to say thank you.'

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-live-lawyer-admitted-providing-political-cover-for-post-office/5119968.article

For information...

Altman, Robinson, Grabiner and one other Anthony Hooper(?) all were the POL defence barristers at the High Court Trial.


So Bob, where were TPTB who in your world covered all this up for TWENTY YEARS, when at the key moment they simply evaporated into thin air at the very second they were needed the most to save their own cover-up?

..dunno.. ..dunno.. ..dunno..

264The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Jun 11 2024, 20:33

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 9k=

265The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Tue Jun 11 2024, 22:23

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Come on Bob you can do better than that.

A twenty year, multi-government cover-up all rests on removing a trial judge that they can easily do so simply by hand picking a 'friendly' Appeals Court judge to do it for them.

They don't!

The truth BURSTS out.

The nation is appalled by the scandal now made public.



But absolutely none of this had to happen.

It wasn't even a difficult thing for TPTB to arrange.

So why didn't they???


Is it because this twenty years, multi-governmental , deep state, conspiracy theory enacted by TPTB only exists in your head perhaps?



Ask yourself why one of the powers that be, hand-picked QC's defending the case on behalf of POL even gave a 'nod and a wink' to the High Court judge that something massive in the defence case STANK?

Why would a hand picked barrister by TPTB to defend their cover-up 'betray' them?

It's all fantasy stuff isn't it Bob?



Do you know why your MP never got back to you, might he have thought you were barking mad perhaps?

..dunno..

266The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 07:23

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I'll just step in to calm things down again. Look at my teddy's. They keep calm at all times. Look at them. Look into their eyes.
From right to left there's Tolly, Archibald, Horace,Biffo, Algernon, and Edgar. Don't you feel better?
If you're good, I'll show you Mr Beesley, Douglas, and Baldwin.
The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Img_5112

267The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 09:03

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

boltonbonce wrote:I'll just step in to calm things down again. Look at my teddy's. They keep calm at all times. Look at them. Look into their eyes.
From right to left there's Tolly, Archibald, Horace,Biffo, Algernon, and Edgar. Don't you feel better?
If you're good, I'll show you Mr Beesley, Douglas, and Baldwin.
The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Img_5112
Very nice collection, Boncey, but it won't be complete without a Jason Beer mug.

If you can, get one inscribed with the words:

"Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us?"
 

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 A4d989937d0e481e19073c1d2e374858e883ce92

And what about a set of these to remind you of the Civil Service, government and Post Office management.




The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Toy-monkeys
And a  Nitwits poster to remind you of Sluffy.

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 MV5BZGNhNjg3N2UtNzhkMi00ZmE2LWJiOGItOGYwYjViYzY2MzAwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTY5MDE5NA@@._V1_

268The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 09:17

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Nice, Bob. Strangely enough, I've just bought a bio-pic of the Three Stooges on Prime.  Very Happy

269The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 09:18

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

What's with all the Mac stuff you pair of flash tw*ts....I'm still using the old PC here...

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 ExxYr3ZWEAoFqq_?format=jpg&name=small

Very Happy

Bonce I like the way Woody is just chilling out up there!

270The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 09:58

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

karlypants wrote:What's with all the Mac stuff you pair of flash tw*ts....I'm still using the old PC here...

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 ExxYr3ZWEAoFqq_?format=jpg&name=small

Very Happy

Bonce I like the way Woody is just chilling out up there!  
Always avoided Apple stuff, KP, then I bought a Mac, and I was hooked. As for Woody, it's the only Woody I get these days.

271The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 11:13

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

boltonbonce wrote:
As for Woody, it's the only Woody I get these days.

Laughing Laughing

272The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 12:53

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluf wrote:



Do you know why your MP never got back to you, might he have thought you were barking mad perhaps?

..dunno..
I didn't give a damn what he thought. The new MP had been parachuted into the constituency after a long 'career' in Conservative Central Office and was probably an old-hand in the cover-up department. I expected that he'd come to see me to find out how much I knew and how much I didn't know. The smell of rat had got stronger the longer the meeting went on but I wasn't going to give up because of him and he knew it.

Amongst other things, over the course of the next year I got the local rag to cover the story and obtained the release of mountains of documents using the Freedom of Information Act. Coinciding with the release of one batch of nearly 300 documents, the Chairman of the NHS Trust was quietly removed from office but with the proceeds of his lucrative raids on the NHS honeypot fully intact.

273The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Wed Jun 12 2024, 22:13

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluf wrote:



Do you know why your MP never got back to you, might he have thought you were barking mad perhaps?

..dunno..
I didn't give a damn what he thought. The new MP had been parachuted into the constituency after a long 'career' in Conservative Central Office and was probably an old-hand in the cover-up department. I expected that he'd come to see me to find out how much I knew and how much I didn't know. The smell of rat had got stronger the longer the meeting went on but I wasn't going to give up because of him and he knew it.

Amongst other things, over the course of the next year I got the local rag to cover the story and obtained the release of mountains of documents using the Freedom of Information Act. Coinciding with the release of one batch of nearly 300 documents, the Chairman of the NHS Trust was quietly removed from office but with the proceeds of his lucrative raids on the NHS honeypot fully intact.

Yes, I remember you telling me all that but not everyone is dishonest in the public sector, in fact it was quite a shock if you ever heard of it in my time but these aren't my times anymore.

Even saying that, not everyone is dishonest these days either, for instance Tony Robinson KC, one of the four barristers hired by POL to defend themselves in Bates v the Post Office, let the judge know, via the POL's end of trial defence summary that 'something was rotten in the state of Denmark', which no doubt helped point him in the direction of why Jenkins was not called as a defence witness in the trial!!!

I've been out for much of the day but I did manage to see a part of the witness statement from Tom Beezer of Bond Dickenson, who were the solicitors acting for POL in instructing the barrister who tried to get the judge to sack himself.

It was very interesting, but he did let it be known that both the government and Shareholder Executive were very strongly against seeking recusal of the judge, the government concern being that they would be seen as undertaking a cover-up if they did!!!

I know you have no time for me and frankly I don't care but this isn't about a cover-up by every government from 1998/9 onwards, its simply that the Royal Mail's, Post Office, were brought into the twenty-first century by becoming computerised, the system had bugs in it and prosecutions were wrongly made on the testimony of an expert witness (Jenkins) not disclosing all the facts.

To be fair to Jenkins no one bothered to train him on this - but the end result was that lives were ruined.

The scandal started when it become known that he did and the POL did nothing about.

Seems to me Crichton knew but got shut down before she could tell the PO  Board.

Did Perkins know, I'm not sure, seems she had no time for Crichton, but I find it a massive coincidence that she shut down Crichton on the very day Crichton was going to spill the beans.

Anyway I'll leave it there because whatever facts I throw at you, you ignore because they don't fit in with your twenty odd year government cover-up conspiracy theory.

Kia ora

274The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 07:03

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Cool it boys. Here's Baldwin and Douglas.  Look into their eyes.

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Img_5113

275The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 09:11

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

boltonbonce wrote:Cool it boys. Here's Baldwin and Douglas.  Look into their eyes.

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Img_5113
Would that be Mike Baldwin and Brian Douglas, Boncey?

Anyroad, after tosspot Tuesday (Messrs de garr Robinson KC and Lord Grabiner KC) Wednesday was a bit weary. I didn't watch a lot of it tbh but what I did was tedious. Its never quite the same without Jase the Ace but Beezer the geezer from Womble Bond Dickinson did OK in the bits that I saw. Apparently Shandy Mandy was worried about a Horizon class action by SPMs back in 2005 after Messrs Bond and partners (there were no Wombles at that time) had messed up.

I saw even less of the guy from Fujitsu but if he was telling the truth, it didn't seem like the whole truth from the bits that I saw.

Its another of the Womble team up today, Andy Parsons. They've got a lot of questions for him; he's on for two days.

276The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 10:11

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Would that be Mike Baldwin and Brian Douglas, Boncey?

Anyroad, after tosspot Tuesday (Messrs de garr Robinson KC and Lord Grabiner KC) Wednesday was a bit weary. I didn't watch a lot of it tbh but what I did was tedious. Its never quite the same without Jase the Ace but Beezer the geezer from Womble Bond Dickinson did OK in the bits that I saw. Apparently Shandy Mandy was worried about a Horizon class action by SPMs back in 2005 after Messrs Bond and partners (there were no Wombles at that time) had messed up.

I saw even less of the guy from Fujitsu but if he was telling the truth, it didn't seem like the whole truth from the bits that I saw.

Its another of the Womble team up today, Andy Parsons. They've got a lot of questions for him; he's on for two days.
Mike Baldwin isn't involved, nor Brian Douglas.
Baldwin was named after a music hall dog in Round The Horne, and Douglas had no ears when he arrived, so earned the moniker Lugless Douglas. Ears have since been acquired.

277The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 13:10

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

As suspected Andy Parsons (Dickinson Bond) PO's external Civil Law Barristers advisors, seems to be a key player in the scandal.

It would take me much too long to explain why and he's only been giving evidence this morning, being the fist of two days that he will be doing so.

In simple terms there are two strands that comprise the legal system Civil and Criminal Law and put simply the rules to each are different to each other.

It seems Parsons had known about the two Clarke advice letters, one on Jenkins not fully disclosing what he knew and not to shred documents ( both Criminal Law matters) but then went on to advise the POL about these two things using a Civil Law view - and quite clearly that is wrong and in his position he would have known that too.

His defence is that as two barrister companies were acting for POL (Dickinson Bond - Civil Law) and Cartwright King - Criminal Law) that he would have thought the POL legal in house team would have known any advice from him was only in respect of the Civil Law view and similar Cartwright King be Criminal Law advise only.

Parsons advice was basically to keep a lid on things and not to disclose anything which is probably good advice in Civil cases (although I'm no expert to know that is the case?) but once things cross the line into Criminal Law that becomes really, really bad advice!!!

And Parsons would have known that to be the case.

278The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 13:28

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

boltonbonce wrote:
Mike Baldwin isn't involved, nor Brian Douglas.
Baldwin was named after a music hall dog in Round The Horne, and Douglas had no ears when he arrived, so earned the moniker Lugless Douglas. Ears have since been acquired.
Thanks Boncey. I'm pleased to hear that Lugless Douglas now has ears even in if they may not be 'listening ears'.

I'm not sure that teddy's really need 'listening ears' but it is quite helpful if members of the government do. Apparently Pat McFadden didn't have any 'listening ears' when former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith asked him in Parliament about Horizon and the Post Office.

279The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 13:40

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Another WOW moment.

In effect Parsons writes to POL saying not disclosing POL's prosecution guidelines to Freeths who were representing the 550 SPMs

(Tbh I don't really understand what that is but assume it must be something to do about now knowing Jenkins was an unsafe witness?)

12.55pm: Getting more uncomfortable for Parsons now. The inquiry sees an email drafted by Bond Dickinson trainee Amy Prime which she sent him to be checked over before sending to the Post Office client about prosecution guidelines. (The issue came up here https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-lawyer-advised-withholding-documents-inquiry-hears/5119416.article )

We now find out that rather than Prime writing the finished email, Parsons replied with one addition, and he put forward a paragraph to insert.

That paragraph said: ‘For now, we’ll do what we can to avoid disclosure of these guidelines and try to do so in a way that looks legitimate. However, we are ultimately withholding a key document and this may attract some criticism from Freeths [claimant lawyers]. If you disagree with this approach do let me know. Otherwise, we’ll adopt the approach until such time as we sense the criticism is becoming serious.’

1.05pm: Parsons says in his witness statement that ‘regrettably, this email is worded very poorly’.

He tells the inquiry that he regretted telling Prime to add this, but maintains that the documents in questions did not need to be disclosed at the time.

Blake [Deputising for Jason Beer's today - Sluffy] says he was clearly aware that this was not the case at the time, given that he was trying – in his words - to act ‘in a way that looks legitimate’. Parsons continues to insist he acted properly to resist disclosure of investigation guidelines.


https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-live-key-solicitor-called-sub-postmasters-liars-and-criminals/5119999.article



Still think this was a deep state cover-up?

Well apparently talking about Jacuqi Smith and Par McFadden in your last post, you DO!

Nothing at all to do with incompetent legal professionals trying to cover-up the unholy mess they've got themselves into, then?

Don't you deal in facts anymore???

..dunno..

280The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Empty Re: The Post Office Scandal Thu Jun 13 2024, 14:05

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Must be more to this Post Office business than I thought. Shocked

The Post Office Scandal - Page 14 Img_5114

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 14 of 17]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum