mr bates vs the post office

Its made for unbelievable listening. Stephen Bradshaw is an ‘investigator’ in name only, who seemed possessed of not a shred of curiosity or interest about anything at all

If his Post Office bosses or Fujitsu told him something, then he just accepted it without a second thought and then rubber stamped everything on their behalf

And he clearly doesn’t have even the slightest bit of shame or regret about his part in ruining so many lives

What an total ****!

I think my concern is, if it’s happening at the PO how sure are we it’s not happening at the Benefits Agency, HMRC or any of the other government bodies with the power to prosecute.

Ignoring tbe prosecution aspect as that (severely) affects a minority of people, but the wider arrogance and refusal to consider an alternative option in the face of evidence is a real issue in the public sector that affects millions.

Austerity hasn’t helped, maybe 15 years of it have resulted in management chains that can’t think outside the austerity box. Obviously, the lead comes down from ministers/government.

The only way you scare folk like this Stephen Bradshaw is start talking about gross negligence and loss of pension, he’s sat there on a full pension and can disappear without any care after this case.

Can see a few articles about him coming out now, he’s making himself unpopular and newspapers love getting info on folk like this.

Ignoring tbe prosecution aspect as that (severely) affects a minority of people, but the wider arrogance and refusal to consider an alternative option in the face of evidence is a real issue in the public sector that affects millions.

It isn’t just the public sector, we have for several decades moved towards a top down society where the majority of people are just disposable commodities.

I said a dozen pages back, this kind of thing happens all the time, not so “industrialized” as has happened here, but people are constantly chewed up and spat out by the system through no fault of their own.

They really need to prosecute the grunts like that PO investigator above as well.

Probably, but it needs to go top down, not bottom up. I’d rather see Paula Vennels in the dock first than Stephen Bradshaw.

Probably, but it needs to go top down, not bottom up. I’d rather see Paula Vennels in the dock first than Stephen Bradshaw.

Listening to him i’d say he’s had more to do with those being jailed and charged than Vennels, he seems to have zero care for any victim and believes he’s still right in what he did and said over the years, everything is blame the prosecution, i was only doing my job.

Yeah that’s fair @argee, but I think that the board are responsible for setting the tone for organisations like this. Bradshaw can act like that becasue he ‘knows’ that’s what his bosses want from him; to make sure the SPM know their place, to make sure that nothing gets in the way of POL operating in the way that it thinks is correct, and the way its wants to, You’re right that without folks like Bradshaw nothing happens, but that’s also true and perhaps says more so about the expectations of the folks way up the food chain. [who could’ve stopped it all at any point they felt like it]

Bradshaw is definitely being set up as the fall guy here.

He’s actually too stupid to see it too

I’d rather we follow the evidence to identify culpability and hold to account no matter where individuals are placed in the organisation.

It’s the right and proper way to do it.

Sound as if his job was as an “enforcer” not an “investigator”.

Sounds like his job was to sign everything they put in front of him.

… in fact, this – https://how-i-met-your-mother.fandom.com/wiki/Provide_Legal_Exculpation_and_Sign_Everything

Bradshaw is definitely being set up as the fall guy here.

He’s actually too stupid to see it too

100% this – the man comes across as thick as ****

You go top down and you get pretty much nothing, they have several layers of protection between them and the actual workings, i’ve seen it in my line of work, you have to show failings in the organisation through their failure to have competent individuals carrying out the policy, processes and procedures within the appropriate organisational structure and governance structure. 

It just annoys me when someone like this turns up in an inquiry, i’ve seen it a few times in my area as well, they’re just ‘doing their job’ and looking for someone to blame, not for any actual issues that require fixing, then wait another few years for it to fail again and play the blame game yet again.

The costs can be reclaimed from the state so you “just” need to be cover the upfront cost whether they win or lose so long as it isnt too obviously dodgy.Which makes it even more problematic in my mind. Since it means both faster “justice” for those who can afford the upfront costs but with the bill in the end coming out of the general fund.A proper two tier system.

Are you saying that if XYZ Plc prosecutes me for some misdemeanour, but in the process racks up a £300K legal bill, which from my meagre assets of a couple of bikes and a laptop I can’t pay that not only will I end up being declared bankrupt but the state will pay XYZ Plc the £300K? 

Sound as if his job was as an “enforcer” not an “investigator”.

He does seem reliant on the lawyers which is a bit problematic when you look at how one of those lawyers performed at the inquiry.
All the PO witnesses seem to be absolute morons.
I am half expecting some HR person to turn up at the enquiry and announce their policy was if someone couldnt mop a floor without collapsing due to being unable to breath at the same time they got transferred to this team.

which from my meagre assets of a couple of bikes and a laptop I can’t pay that not only will I end up being declared bankrupt but the state will pay XYZ Plc the £300K?

Yup seems that way. Although as with most legal things I think there is some terms and conditions apply.

Is anyone actually listening to Stephen Bradshaw, the senior Post Office investigator being questioned by the inquiry?

I bet when he was bullying all those postmasters years ago he never thought he’d be interrogated live on 24 hour national news channels a decade later. 😂

“Stephen, just keep bangin’ on about ‘the charity’. Keep saying ‘charity’ and everyone will not notice you’re full of vindictive shit. And dim.”

Bradshaw is a prime example of someone who has exceeded his ceiling of competence. It’s not surprising that people got falsely nailed to the wall if that is the standard of ‘investigator’.

He’s falling apart like a house of cards in a hurricane just now, and his testimony will be used against the prosecutors with the way he’s throwing everyone under the bus 

Bet the victims are watching this and laughing at how the boots on the other foot now!

I’ll bet that some of the others who gave testimony to the enquiry previously are glad that their own pitiful performances were prior to the media focus being on it.

Also, the inquiry chair probably needs to start sending people from the Post Office to prison for slow release of documents.

Stephen Bradshaw at the end of today sounded fully like the petty, nasty little bully that many of his victims have accused him of being. He looks like the type who was properly getting off on his little power trip.

What a horrible little man.

dissonance
Full Member

Thats one of the odd things which has come out of the trials. Most of them seem to be lifetime PO staff switching from counter/post delivery staff to being investigators at random.

Was much the same for the internal investigation guys in the bank I used to work for- there was basically 2 divisions, the high level guys who had more background in investigation, forensic accounting, some ex-police, and who were mostly looking at organised crime and larger scale stuff, and the everyday guys who’d be the equivalent of people dealing with postmasters, who pretty much all came through the business.

I reckon it worked tbh, theu needed a proper inside-and-out understanding of the systems but also the logic and the day-to-day culture and the opportunities and pressures and temptations. Every case I was involved in, I’m pretty certain it’d be more useful to be an ex-counter-person than ex-police or financial crime. I got tapped for the job once (because I had quote “the right nasty sort of brain”, which I think really meant that I’d worked out a hundred ways how to rip off the bank but never thought it worth doing it) but it seemed an absolutely miserable job tbh.

poly
Free Member

I can’t see any reason why for a criminal prosecution there is any need for someone other than “the crown” to prosecute? Can anyone explain why we want RSPCA, or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, or Big Bank Plc to lead prosecutions potentially resulting in prison sentences?

I don’t think it should rest with corporations, but I can see a good argument with NGOs. Like, if you want serious animal abuse to be a criminal offence- and I do- do you want that to sit in with normal policing jobs? Or to have a whole separate, and presumably hopelessly underresourced Farms Squad? The NGOs are highly skilled and highly motivated and have the day-to-day involvement and eye on the crimes. In the end it’s basically the same argument for having an RSPCA instead of a Department of Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals. It Just absolutely needs to be properly counterweighted with safeties and protections in the legal/court system.

In an ideal world I’d say sure make that a properly resourced police role but pragmatically, it ‘d be the first to be cut. “Labour are soft on crime, they want to spend YOUR MONEY on chasing people who kicked a dog once instead of SMALL BOATS”

(another option would be to have a small “taking action” team so that basically the investigation side is all outsourced but eventually you have to go to an office of the state to actually make a prosecution. But that has potential for abuse and client policing)

Stephen Bradshaw at the end of today sounded fully like the petty, nasty little bully that many of his victims have accused him of being. He looks like the type who was properly getting off on his little power trip.

What a horrible little man.

He’s certainly done himself no favours, he just reminds me of folk I’ve worked with over the years, especially civil service, would put money on him being, or has been, a union rep in the PO

would put money on him being, or has been, a union rep in the PO

Poor management get the union officials that they deserve.

Watched most of this today. The Dunning and Kruger effect writ large, too stupid to know how stupid he is. Whilst he comes across as a nasty piece of work and a liar, with his level of incompetence, the fault has got to lie with others allowing him to do a job which he seems unqualified and unfit to do. There’s obviously been 20 years of groupthink and delusion at the PO, what’s surprising is how long it went on and that none of the number of clever people who have been involved (lawyers are generally far from stupid) seemed to have cut through the bullshit and said that the whole strategy wasn’t sustainable or ethical.

This is worth a read about the quality of testimony that the inquiry has been dealing with.

lawyers are generally far from stupid

There are always exceptions. The PO lawyer in charge of their prosecutions in the later years had a couple of days at the inquiry last month.
He didnt come across any better.

Like, if you want serious animal abuse to be a criminal offence- and I do- do you want that to sit in with normal policing jobs?

northwind – do you believe that animal cruelty is more common in Scotland or less frequently successfully prosecuted where RSPCA have no remit and SSPCA have the power to investigate and report to the COPFS but no option to prosecute in their own right?

He didnt come across any better.

He couldn’t even remember if he was head of criminal law. 🤡

the fault has got to also lays at the feet of those with others allowing him to do a job which he seems unqualified and unfit to do

FTFY

Little man or no, he’s culpable as well as the tools who hired and managed him. I know there’s this innate desire for vengeance against those we see as the ‘elite’, or faceless leaders, but there should be no free passes because you’re a bit thick, or a bit clever.

If you’re deemed to have perpetrated this ****, no matter how great or small you should expect to answer for that. Which is what the SPM’s want.

There are always exceptions. The PO lawyer in charge of their prosecutions in the later years had a couple of days at the inquiry last month. He didnt come across any better

fair point, though the solicitors and QCs involved should surely have known all this wasn’t kosher. There must be a few of them expecting a knock at the door from SRA

This is worth a read about the quality of testimony that the inquiry has been dealing with.

this would be hilarious if it wasn’t so utterly depressing:

“There followed some of the most surreal gibberish I’ve ever heard from someone under oath”

“The world is full of thick-as-mince, malevolent incompetents like Elaine Cottam. The problems start when they are promoted into positions of power, as the Post Office appears to have done with multiple idiots on multiple occasions.”

Also, the inquiry chair probably needs to start sending people from the Post Office to prison for slow release of documents.

Can they do this?
If so, levering the sobering reality of your inaction and action would perhaps really change the culture of resistance that seems to still be in the PO.

Can they do this?

Evidence in a public inquiry is requested by the Chair under s21 of the Inquiries Act.

s35 Inquiries Act state;

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he fails without reasonable excuse to do anything that he is required to do by a notice under section 21.

You can go to prison for it but how it applies to a corporate body with the s21 request being served on the organisation rather than an individual is outside my experience (IANAL).

poly
Free Member

northwind – do you believe that animal cruelty is more common in Scotland or less frequently successfully prosecuted where RSPCA have no remit and SSPCA have the power to investigate and report to the COPFS but no option to prosecute in their own right?

I’m not sure it makes much difference in the end tbh, in both cases the private org is building the prosecution, in principle I think it ought to just come down to where the safeguard/stopcheck is- whether it’s at “the decision to prosecute” or “letting the prosecution proceed”. But in practice of course not so simple. But equally my (25 years of rust) scottish vs uk law courses mostly convinced me that doing direct comparisons between the two never really works even when it looks similar.

Can they do this?

sort of.  He can prosecute for failing to provide or appear etc.  (Ironically in E&W it looks like he needs the permission of the DPP to do so!).  He can’t send them to jail, but if convicted the Magistrates could!  It looks like this applies on individuals rather than corporate bodies? But presumably that because the order to supply the documents would be served on the individuals?

If so, levering the sobering reality of your inaction and action would perhaps really change the culture of resistance that seems to still be in the PO.

ironically a corporate failure to cooperate probably does the organisation much more harm than any penalty the magistrates court would impose – the inquiry will ultimately write recommendations.  A failure to recognise it’s wrong doing and poor governance must surely result in massive wholesale change, reorganisation and removal of individuals?  There’s no way whichever government is in power at the time is going to want to be seen to ignore the findings of the inquiry.  If they had shown they had learned/could improve by themselves it would be much harder to justify root and branch change.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Ian Hislop about to lose his temper before! Hislop for PM!

https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/g7WdbY7I

In depth report on the huge pressure and lies aimed at the BBC and Panorama back in 2015.

The PO and it’s lawyers lobbied top BBC staff, threatened the BBC and Panorama witnesses/experts with litigation all the while denying that the Horizon system had any issues. Well worth a read.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743

A quote from the UK Cycling thread. Shocking stats. Pre – Horizon 6 postmasters convicted per year. Afterwards 51.

“Conversation on Joshua Rozenburg’s blog – According to a Post Office FOI statement obtained by Nick Wallis in 2020 and passed on to me by Alan Bates, the number of subpostmasters convicted in 1991 to 1998 averaged 6 per year. After Horizon, from 2000 to 2013, that number rose to 51 per year.

Assuming there was no sudden frenzy of criminality among the country’s subpostmasters, we might reasonably assume, from those figures, that roughly 88% of those convicted were innocent.”