The Post Office Horizon IT Scandal: Inquiry Reveals Shocking Testimonies

Introduction

The long-running inquiry into the Post Office's Horizon IT system scandal took a dramatic turn yesterday when George Thomson, former leader of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters (NFSP), made a series of controversial statements. Thomson asserted that the true scandal was not the Horizon system itself but the Post Office's mishandling of the situation. His testimony has provoked strong reactions from various stakeholders involved in the inquiry.

Key Statements from George Thomson

George Thomson, who led the NFSP from 2007 to 2018, vehemently defended the Horizon system during his testimony. He stated, "The Horizon system is not the scandal, the Post Office stupidity on steroids handling of the situation is the scandal." Thomson maintained that the system was "very robust" and criticised the Post Office for failing to properly defend it.

Background on the Horizon Scandal

Between 1999 and 2015, over 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted for offences including theft and false accounting, based on faulty data from the Horizon IT system. Sub-postmasters reported bugs and discrepancies, often showing shortfalls of thousands of pounds, but their concerns were largely ignored by the Post Office.

Reactions to Thomson's Testimony

The reactions to Thomson's defence of Horizon were swift and scathing. Christopher Head, a former sub-postmaster, described Thomson's views as "nothing short of abhorrent." David Enright, a lawyer who has represented hundreds of affected sub-postmasters, criticised Thomson's defence of Horizon as a "flat earther defence" that "defies credulity."

Thomson, however, argued that the prosecutions were a "tiny percentage" of the 100,000 users of Horizon over 25 years. He denied that the NFSP had become "too close" to the Post Office or was "flush with cash."

Allegations of Collusion

The inquiry revealed an email from Mark Davies, the Post Office's communications and corporate affairs director, indicating that Thomson had been "tipping off" the Post Office about scrutiny of the Horizon system. Thomson defended his actions, stating he worked closely with the Post Office to strengthen the franchise.

NFSP's Defence and Funding

Thomson claimed that while the NFSP had advocated for sub-postmasters, it lacked the funds for a legal defence. Evidence presented at the inquiry showed a 15-year financial arrangement between the Post Office and NFSP, starting with annual payments of ￡500,000 in 2013-14 and increasing to ￡2.5 million by 2017.

Response from NFSP's Current Leadership

Calum Greenhow, the current chief executive of the NFSP, distanced the organisation from Thomson's comments. He issued an unreserved apology to members who felt unsupported during the Horizon scandal. Greenhow acknowledged that more should have been done and criticised Thomson for not taking warning signals about Horizon seriously.

Conclusion

The inquiry continues to uncover the complexities and failures surrounding the Post Office Horizon IT system. Thomson's testimony has highlighted significant divisions in opinion and responsibility, sparking further debate and scrutiny of the actions taken by the Post Office and NFSP. The inquiry aims to deliver justice and clarity for the affected sub-postmasters.

Reference

BBC News: Post Office system not a scandal, insists ex-union boss

#PostOfficeScandal #HorizonInquiry #GeorgeThomson #NFSP #SubPostmasters #ITScandal #UKNews #LegalInquiry #JusticeForSubPostmasters #ITFailures

Public Interest Disclosure Statement

This statement outlines the principles guiding disclosures made in my articles, which aim to serve the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability.

Guiding Principles

• Public Interest: Disclosures are made to serve the public interest, inspired by the principles underlying the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
• Ethical Reporting: I strive to adhere to ethical reporting practices to the best of my ability as a non-professional writer.
• Factual Accuracy: All information disclosed is factual and evidence-based to the best of my knowledge.
• Good Faith: Disclosures are made without malice and with a genuine belief in their truth and public importance.
• Proportionality: The extent of disclosure is proportionate to the perceived wrongdoing or risk.
• Confidentiality: Sources and sensitive information are protected where appropriate.

Legal Considerations Disclosures are made with consideration of:

• Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR: Personal data is processed in compliance with data protection principles.
• Defamation Act 2013: Truth: Factual statements are true to the best of my knowledge. Honest Opinion: Opinions are clearly identified and based on facts. Public Interest: Publication is believed to be in the public interest.
• Human Rights Act 1998: Disclosures exercise the right to freedom of expression, balanced against other rights.

Ethical Standards

While not a professional journalist, I strive to maintain high ethical standards in my reporting, including:

• Verifying information to the best of my ability
• Seeking comment from those involved where possible
• Being transparent about my methods and limitations

Disclaimer

This statement does not claim legal protections specific to employee whistleblowers or professional journalists. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and ethical compliance, this is not legal advice. I am not a legal professional or a qualified journalist. Legal and ethical advice will be sought in cases of uncertainty.

By adhering to these principles, I aim to make responsible disclosures that serve the public interest while respecting legal and ethical obligations.