Did Post Office Try to HIDE Information Using Legal Privilege?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 апр 2024
- Support DPS Computing and independent journalism!
Patreon - / dpscomputing
Locals - dpscomputing.locals.com/support
Rumble channel - rumble.com/c/DPSComputing
Did Post Office Try to HIDE Information from subpostmasters and their legal teams using Legal Privilege?
Advice from a principle lawyer within the legal team at the Post Office says that communications with the primary purpose of gathering information related to litigation should be marked 'legally privileged and confidential'.
Angela van den Bogerd is shown a summary that she created based on the email where all communication relating to the subpostmasters cases should be marked legally privileged and confidential.
Did this subtle change of language suggest that the Post Office were trying to hide information from subpostmasters and their legal teams as concerns about the Fujitsu Horizon system continued to be raised?
#PostOfficeInquiry #PostOfficeScandal #PostOffice #PostOfficeExecutive #AngelaVanDenBogerd 
Наука
She has already received serious condemnation by a judge. There is no doubt that she was one of the key architects of this monstrous miscarriage of justice. She should be prosecuted and lose her pension. She has sat and lied over and over again under oath during this investigation, utterly grotesque person.
To the full extent of the law!
The law is an ass, so it seems. The big guys crush the little guys.
And the big guys are laughing all the way to the bank!
Don't worry she's already lined up a cushy number these sort of scum always do?
This woman was /is being payed hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum plus bonuses .Whilst she was terrorising the .SPMs.Unbelievable.
Either she was grossly incompetent, in which case POL should have sacked her for gross misconduct - or she lied & is a criminal.
Do you want to be done for perjury or negligence? Pick any one darling? Be careful, you might get done for both.
The last one!
For discussing an ITV series?
Or both!!!😉😉
This is where she waffles just to create confusion and obfuscation.
Isn't it amazing how she has full recall when it comes to covering her own arse?
Just like the rest of the Aholes!
I find it difficult to watch and listen to this woman, the answer to the original question us Yes they tried to hide behind it.
When the inquiry has heard from all the witnesses, there needs to be a discussion about who is the most dishonest, who is the most evil, who is the most irritating, who is the most incompetent. She's going to rank high in dislike.
Of course, we haven't heard from Paula yet. She is going to get f-ing roasted.
Soo looking forward to it! Vennells for prison!
This woman is VERY selective in her ANSWERS and HER MEMORY of EVENTS !! I HOPE Prison AWAITS for this LIAR !!
Failure to disclose should see all of them held accountable. Including disbarring their legal team.
❤ yet not once did ANYONE question why hundreds of subpostmasters would try to trick the robust horizon system to steal. Not once.
I'm sure they did. They just knew that if they questioned anything they'd be sacked themselves for "disloyalty" and "not being a team player" or being a despicable "whistleblower". Vennells and van den Bogeybum were dead set on protecting the brand, and if innocent postmasters needed to go under the bus...well "let's not think about that!" They might be guilty so let's suppose that they are!
This is what is happening with Common Platform, the Fujitsu software that uk government has an open ended contract for. It's now used in the criminal justice system, has backdoor access, no audit features, loads of bugs and causes stress for users.
Users are expected to never speak out, also to find workarounds for the faulty system.
No wonder it was delayed 15years, people must have known what was going to come out about the post office.
The police and CPS refused to allow any connection to a gateway to share documents as they all know something we don't as public.
It would have been handy to change or remove documents stored on a system with backdoor access and no audit trace.
No wonder there was such a push to roll it out once legal action against post office was rumoured.
The taxpayer is having £Billions wasted on software they agreed will never be finished or presented as a working item.
Departments were advised to get teams together to deflect all complaints from staff, so they used the unpopular and rude people, often promoting them to invented positions. Their job is to get rid of complaints and report back to managers if people disagree with anything, or refuse to get involved with finding solutions to cover for faulty software.
She answers almost every question with a deflecting statement, intended to steer the conversation away from the stark reality of her guilty actions and culpability. If she absolutely has to answer the question she immediately follows up with verbal padding that is irrelevant to the question asked. This is certainly a tactic that she has used throughout her entire working career. It's called 'slipping around' and is an often successful ruse because the human mind tends to focus on the last item that is presented to it. Fortunately Mr Beer is a man with a laser sharp focus - he grounds her back to the point of topic every time.
They were the officers and we were the grunts, we were classed as stupid, dishonest and thieves.
Horizon just filled in the blanks.
Just like WW1 blackadder.
She has certainly cloaked information as Mr Beer and yourself have said. She interpolated the legal advice ignoring the qualification into a direct instruction so that it covers all correspondence, whether it was entitled to legal privilege or not. Quite appalling and deliberate in my view.
This one needs to be in the first entrants to Holloway.
Even the court declared her as a bare faced liar. We need to run a competition for ranking PO liars. This woman will be near the top of the league table.
This lying manipulator...... she is such a liar and should be facing multiple perjury charges as a starting point. We need to see two faced lying Post Office executives (seen here) and their lying lawyers and investigators serving jail time for this and heavy compensation for their victims and the families of lost victims.
The problem is that unless your case comes in front of a public inquiry like this, the regulator "The Information Commissioner's Office [ICO]", will without exception accept that material is "legally privileged", and enable the "people abusing their positions of power" to abuse their powers in the full knowledge that their abuse is always going to be kept secret, and undisclosable.
She knew what she was doing, knowing that the material will be classified as "legally privileged", never going to be revealed.
Well I have a pretty low opinion of our nation's regulators.
I think the question of legal privilege is slightly above their pay grade though.
Thanks for clarifying that Matthew. I was not aware of the British rules around this issue. Manipulating, obfuscating scoundrels!
Mostly you are correct. In one lucky instance the ICO agreed with me that some emails were not privileged as had been claimed and asked for them to be disclosed. Not that this brought any consequences upon the lawyers who misapplied privilege: their professional body was disinterested.
no. well.
I've currently got a case against the SRA for claiming legal privilege for emails I sent them, that subsequently didn't show up on a submission from their solicitors.
So no, I'm not surprised the lawyers aren't being held responsible.
@@benholroyd5221 one can only marvel at the selection process - presumably all meet at the same Golf Club or whatever.
The one-eime head of OFSTED would have been prosecuted as a sex offender under current regulations - he lived by the belief that teachers sex with sixth formers was OK, when he was a teacher.
The one-time head of the ICO had to steo down after sexual allegations. Same for the IOPC.
One can only wonder if they were the head of these important regulatory bodies specifically because they were "known" offenders, and so biddable by political whips to turn blind eyes to important cases.
Shocking people, how do they sleep at night, they all should ashamed and disappointed that they didn’t have the capability to conduct themselves with integrity.
Underpinned in all of this, is that after Three years, money in the suspense account went to the Post Office. Once the responsible parties figured out how much money it was going to cost them, the wagons were circled so to speak.
Either we see a collection of the most callous liars simultaneously involved in the same (criminal) enterprise or the Post Office was the most unfortunate organisation to have employed the most incompetent management team in history, advised by the most forgetful lawyers to ever have passed the bar exams.
What are the chances of that happening? Definitely a case of hiring "PLU" - people like us.
Lawyers don't do a "bar exam" you have been watching too much American TV. In England and Wales Lawyers do an LPC (Legal Practice Course) or if they are old enough an LPE (Legal Practice Exam). The LPE was just an exam was changed to the LPC which had practical assignments. Only Barasters who are called to the bar do a bar exam in England and Wales. Not sure what happens in Scotland, with its completely different legal system.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 So actually some of them do take a bar exam, but thanks for taking the time to add some clarity.
@@stevenhoward3358 Only barristers take the bar exam and the lawyers we see from the Post Office are not barristers so have not passed the bar exam.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 However, the lawyers instructed by the POL were QC at the time, Warwick Tatford for example. It seems you're determined to prove me wrong, but I said 'involved' with the Post Office, so make of it what you will.
"Cruella" Van den Bogerd.
One only has to look at her face
@@minuteman4394 I definitely wouldn't trust her with 1 dalmatian, let alone 101.👍
With Horace and Jasper Bradshaw 😮
you've been van den Buggared
Hello hope you are OK it is EXHAUSTING watching the inquiry witnesses all the way through. Hope you are well. :)
Hey Charlie. Getting by thanks! Absolutely! Hope you’re well too. Thanks for checking in!
Wow! Or more appropriately O.M.G! I've just finished listening to Chris Aujard again. This guy is unreal! How to dumb down his own position whilst blaming everyone else using as many words as possible is an understatement! Ye God's! How do these people manage to conduct their professional lives as well as their clients within the bounds of basic competence I do not know! I think just about everyone was frustrated with this individual and keeping hold of their tempers! 🤯😤😵💫🤷🤦🙏🤭
Whether a document or oral evidence is privileged is a question of substance, not form, so just marking documents as 'confidential and privileged', or forwarding them to a lawyer, cannot automatically make a non-privileged document a privileged one.
She knew exactly what she was doing
She is corrupt and deceitful
Can we take a moment to realise at the very beginning of this interview she made it very clear she is non apologetic for her part, throughout her interview had the arrogance to correct Mr Beers Grammar and was constantly sighing throughout as if she couldn't bothered to be there
Absolutely horrible woman
Jason beer has got to be the best QC in the UK, he takes no prisoners and will rip anyone a new arse hole. AWESOME 👌 👌
Regarding 5:43 no it does not. My understanding having watched the inquiry is that POL were looking to use privilege as a ‘carte blanche’ to avoid disclosing documents that should have, in the interests of fairness, have been disclosed. The principle of disclosure is to balance up situations where one party has greater information. The postmasters [lawyers] would have liked to use it to find out what POL knew about Horizon. Therefore, one cannot simply just label Priv&Confidential…
For someone in control.....lots of not remembering eh??......jail time coming her way I hope!!.
Go directly to jail.
Legally Privileged and Confidential - The Mafia missed out on that move. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble!!🇺🇸😂😂
what a horrible person.
This person deserves to stand in front of a jury and have a fair trial for the seeming crimes they have committed .
If the police don't act we need to follow Alan Bates and crowdfund such a process. We cannot let these people get away without a trial.
My cheque book is ready if no action is taken.
Let's have some proper justice for teflon executives for a change and get faith back in justice.
Please join me if we need to
Crowd fund for postmaster justice
See if in her un human like future if she remembers -the hard reality of prison and how may times she has to pick up the soap in the showers
This has rolled down from the top, government and fujitsu.
We wait for Jenkins, hopefully his evidence will provide clear info on who knew what!
Is anyone running a TOTAL CAN’T RECALL League Table ?
I read in a Linked In article that it had been used over 1000 times so far.
Jarmal Singh, Angela Bogerd Martin Smith, John Smiith and Hugh F must be up there.
A Soviet style of management that responds only to perverse incentives and seeks desperately to maintain those incentives.
Lots of BS and waffling, back up by a good helping of 'can't remember'
I should do a video on legal privilege; it's an interesting topic. Generally documents are legally privileged if they either contain legal queries/advice or are prepared "in contemplation of litigation". That's not a general get out of gaol free card though. You can't hide disclosable material under the cloak of privilege.
So routine records and communications created before litigation was contemplated wouldn't be covered by privilege. But once potential proceedings are in the air, even if not yet initiated, then communications exclusively about that would be.
We have a private Twitter group for lawyers which is actually called "In contemplation of litigation". Just in case.
Yeah, that’d be great! Thanks for the info and clarification. Much appreciated
@@DPSComputing My Pleasure. As you know I very much appreciate all your work on this channel. Hope everyone else does too. But I know how hard it is to collate the relevant material, and then just the hassle of editing etc.
@@coachhousechambers2047 Interesting info on privilege, thanks. I’d be very interested on your take on a channel called Innocence Fraud Watch - I have reported it to the Inquiry Team as it makes some wild, libellous claims about SPMs.
Imagine being in meetings with this lady.
Angela van den Teflon ....
Why have you stopped? You were on to a winning strategy!?
An umbrella answer yes they did do everything they could to get away with this crime
quite apart from anything else, why would covering-up be necessary. If the po orifice behaves correctly and above board why the need for legal privilege?
You are correct, under English law, marking a document as "legally privileged and confidential" does *NOT* automatically preclude it from disclosure. It may serve as an initial indication of the intended confidentiality, but it does not prevent disclosure. Indeed, one of the criteria for overriding privilege (if such existed) is if the communication was made in furtherance of a criminal or fraudulent purpose, as was the case here.
Thank you very much for the information and clarification! Much appreciated.
Unless, of course, everyone is going to lie about its substance and refuse to present it, ‘because it’s a privileged communication’!!!
I'm not a lawyer, but I would say a person may regard something as as Legal Privileged and Confidential, but only a non-disclosure agreement could keep it under seal; otherwise such documents could not be shown to the public without a Judge's say so I would think.
She may as well have said "find all the documents, re-draft them to cover our arses and shred or delete the originals"
She must know they will take the easy route, which is to mark everything as confidential.
I wonder what the impact of so much information being available in the public sphere would have on a criminal investigation.
yes
5:32
Not a lawyer but been dealing with legal privilege recently.
The idea is to allow a client to be candid with regards to actual or contemplated litigation.
Marking something as legally privileged doesnt make it so, and it is for the person claiming privilege to demonstrate that it is privileged.
Internal communications between non lawyers would never be legally privileged, and organisations need to be quite careful that certain parties are indeed clients for the purposes of legal privilege.
Yes, of course they did.
I suspect she was guiding her team to mark everything as legally privileged rather than rely on them deciding which ones should and shouldn’t, ie didn’t trust her team to make the correct decision. And she’s not so stupid that she didn’t realise that a byproduct would be that all of these communications would be confidential and therefore unable to be disclosed. She’s not daft!!
She thinks she is made of teflon
❤ remember earlier.... Are you lying or grossly incompetent? I am NOT lying. Crickets...
She can't remember if she can remember
This enquiry will further compound the Post Office's image with the public. In many ways, whilst I see the need for an investigation, this will send a wider message to further fragment and fully privatise PO. Inquiry's look good to the public at large, but even if the CPS and Police decide to prosecute certain individuals, their prison sentencing will be short, and each individual will have a nice penison pot waiting ,and, in the case of CEOs or those in the mid-level, all their earnings when they come out of prison from their tenure at the PO. Justice is never done.
@DPS Computing : what is your position on updating POL vid's now after getting kicked in the nuts by youtube ??
If this woman actually thinks she has any credibility AT ALL at this stage....She is even more of a psychopath than was previously thought. Blind Freddie can see she is lying.
Feel the love baby , feel the love 😂😂😂
@DPS all ok ?
Remember remember the 5th of December, the start of the horizon cover up and plot, for what they knew then we all know now because the truth will always come out!!
One can tell immediately thar Sir Wyn Williams is from South Wales.
Do you think they're establishing the Actus Reus & Mens Rea What they did and why for possible prosecution?
It wasn’t my intention to hide everything even though I I said that 😮.
One word……. JAIL
Has this channel stopped showing the inquiry? Shame.
There has been evidence from other PO staff about the requirement to mark communication as legally privileged. Emily only stayed 3 years, maybe she decided that it wasn’t a good place to be.
This is the problem with non lawyers passing on legal advice. The important part is the “dominant purpose test”. To attract privilege the document must have the main or dominant purpose of providing legal advice. It can contain other things but the main reason for it coming into being must be legal advice.
And counsel is being a little devious here. There is nothing wrong with restructuring a document to have legal advice as the dominant purpose. All that means is that if the purpose is legal advice then don’t bury that advice in a bullet point on page 4.
It’s fun to guess what the response to a question is going to be
I assumed someone else would do that.
waffle about something irrelevant and hope the question goes away.
that wasn’t my area of responsibility.
I don’t recall (don’t say yes/no unless it helps you).
I didn’t have the experience for that.
that’s not what was meant by that statement / you need the context to understand.
Just watched Martin Smith and Jarnail Singh and I’m getting the hang of it
I think MS actually said he didn’t know what a solicitor is meant to do.
Thought Susan Crichton seemed ok - maybe she’s covered her tracks well though. Others seem to say she was responsible for things.
Love all these questioners and judge.
But I am getting the feeling that nothing is going to come of this. Hope I’m wrong.
4 weeks later and I've watched lots of the inquiry and the POL method is 'Don't decall, not my department, outside my brief, not important to my work, I just signed what mey team gave me' etc etc etc....
Nope
Liar Liar Big Pants on 🔥
Excreta cerebrum vincet
... did a bunhch of vids just go missing
Did you get the problem with RUclips sorted out?
{:o:O:}
At this point even if she's remotely innocent AVDB needs to go to prison to reflect the massive fraud she perpetrated against 1000s of people not least of which for manslaughter for Martin Griffiths.
These people stole money from the Post Office and taxpayers to run a Ponzi scheme and then to pay for their defense!!
why has this channel stopped posting new videos?
fu google and post office
we're staying on this until justice is done
AVDB seems to have lived in an alternate universe and unable to accept she made mistakes
It's called having a criminal mind.
The PO has for yesrs never been its true self thst we all know!
The PO taking true shoukd be sold off, this scandal is absolutely appalling, i feel the terrible pain all the sub postmasters have had to endure... Everything is a operational mess from management to the rubbish employers contracts, compensation absolutely YES!!!
Its time the real truth is known, ... Going to prison and innocent is a total collapse of UK law. It speaks volumes , uk law is a donkey!!!
Media saying Vennells in the seat today guys !