my knowledge, i was unable to within my knowledge, i was unable to ascertain the root cause of the apparent shortfall at all. you have your thoughts, which are set out later. i called my retail network manager the following day to inform him. in the absence of a proper response from the post office i carried out, i carried over the apparent shortfall from that weak�*s cash account to the following week's cash account to the following week's cash account to the following week's cash account by transferring it to a suspense account, which was visible to the post office. £5,000 of that £6,000 was attributable to wrongly duplicated giros. the remaining £1100, is it that that you end up in dispute with the post office over?

at the time, yes. you wrote a detailed letter to the post office? i did. can we look at that? page 134, please. we can see this is dated 19th december 2000. about six days after the balancing issue emerged. to add a bit months after the installation of horizon at your branch. it must be noted, very early in the life of the horizon system taken as a whole, would you agree? yes. the heading is, horizon faults.

can we read the letter together? this sets out what might be an important account early in the life of horizon. you refer back in the first paragraph to a conversation, and as is good practice you confirmed it in detail in writing. you see the balance at this office on the 13th was not only very stressful but also very worrying. the evidence that appeared during that day proved beyond any doubt that day proved beyond any doubt that the horizon system cannot be relied upon to give 100% accurate figures. the problem which was highlighted to this office that day was with regard to giro deposits and at one point weekly returns were showing variants to the addition of the daily returns of over £6,000. the whole of that afternoon was

spent making a number of phone calls to the different helplines, one of almost one hour long. kept two of the three terminals producing nothing back to reports, but at peak trading time when we had queues out of the door, though eventually i did manage to track down the majority of the money. that said, the cash account for that week is still showing a shortage of £1182.81. i can attribute 635 two giro items that have been double entered and i'm not able to track because of the way horizon is setup. of the remaining shortage i am presuming that for all 915 of that shortage is from the previous week carried over to that total, this leaves a difference of 40516 which i am unsure of where that comes from. it may well be a giro system error, it might be the previous week �*sshortage, or it may be something

else. unfortunately the carrot horizon system does not let you access previous transactions accurately enough to track problems with shorts or overs at the end of the week. continue. having spoken to the local branch secretary of the federation of sub—postmaster is on this problems and realising problems i am experiencing are being found by others around the country, i really do not believe it would be unreasonable for post office network to hold me liable for losses on the cash account until such time as 100% guarantee can be given about the accuracy of horizon. i have been hoping to leave any comments in writing about horizon until the office is quieter injanuary and then write a detailed submission about the costs we have been carried with it, around £1000, the problem is with the counter staff working with money and start books on

cheers, on the shelf behind them, very poor layout of the screen menus, the slowness of the printers, their chaotic end of the an end of week procedures, and the problems of having to do office work at a terminal on the counter. given time i shall produce a report for you. please do not think that i am being nothing that's negative about the system. i am a firm believer in the way forward through a system. but bearin way forward through a system. but bear in mind i a bit semi by someone who has had considerable experience of electronic point of sale systems before joining the post office of electronic point of sale systems beforejoining the post office in 1998. ifirst began beforejoining the post office in 1998. i first began working with them in 1986 and have used a variety of systems. i do have some insight into those systems and i would gladly be willing to offer constructive feedback if asked. with regard to the current deficit showing on the cash account for last week, how do you want me to progress this week's balance? shall ijust roll it through and see what happens, orwhat? happens, or what? and then happens, orwhat? and then you ask for assistance. in

that letter you make it clear on a number of occasions that horizon is at fault and you explain in detail why, so far as you could tell, that was so? that is correct. you tell the post office you are not alone and that that is happening around the country. and that that is happening around the country-— the country. that is what i understood. _ the country. that is what i understood. did _ the country. that is what i understood. did that - the country. that is what i - understood. did that information come from _ understood. did that information come from your— understood. did that information come from your local _ understood. did that information come from your local branch - come from your local branch secretary? yes. and you ask a question, what should i do, at the end? yes. did you get a written reply? no. zero rel to you get a written reply? no. zero reply to this _ you get a written reply? no. zero reply to this letter _ you get a written reply? no. zero reply to this letter at _ you get a written reply? no. zero reply to this letter at all? never~ _ reply to this letter at all? never. ., reply to this letter at all? never. . ., ., ., ' :: never. can we move onto page 140. this is a follow-up _ never. can we move onto page 140. this is a follow-up letter, _ never. can we move onto page 140. this is a follow-up letter, 7th - never. can we move onto page 140. this is a follow-up letter, 7th of - this is a follow—up letter, 7th of january 2002.

over one year has passed. you are writing to the post office about this one in the tooth alleged shortfall. and you say, as you are aware of the cash account for this office is still showing an amount in the suspense account. this punitive figure was placed in suspense account towards the end of 2000. and i have no doubt at all it was due to errors in their horizon system over a number of weeks at that time. then my letters of 19th of december, 16th ofjuly 2001, i have skipped over that one because of time, neither of which to die receive a written reply to. i gave further details on this matter. i really do think that enough time has now passed for post office to have resolved this issue and that unless i receive a written

comment of country by the end of this month i will take it that the matter is closed. when i signed my contract with post office counters i did not sign to accept the liabilities arising from the shortcomings of the less than adequate horizon system. all liabilities from such a system actively the responsibility of post office limited, or icl pathway. 0ffice limited, or icl pathway. allowing this issue to drag or not only continues the stress and strain of the original problem, but i fear also continually cast doubt over my honesty, and that of my staff, therefore i greatly appreciate it if you would bring this matter to a head in order that we can move on. can we turn to your inquiry witness statement, please? paragraph 39 and 40. page 12.

you see, finally, by letter of 6th of march 2002, i was notified that post office has decided to take no further action in respect of the loss of my branch and that this would be written off. no reason was given. but i have since seen a copy of the write off voucher disclosed by the post office which gives the reason for the write off as, disputed horizon cash account shortage. the letter of 6th of march also said that post office had taken time to respond because, it has been necessary to formulate a consistent response to all such cases. i take it from this that the post office was aware at the time of many such complaints. i also take from the fact that the post office was willing to write off the

considerable apparent discrepancy i disputed that my complaints were valid and that the post office was aware that was the case and wish to avoid a controversy on this matter, given that i was willing to search my legal rights. page 143, please. just look back at page 142. this is the letter you were referring to a new witness statement?- the letter you were referring to a new witness statement? yes. look at the third paragraph. the passage that you cited after due

consideration of the facts surrounding the loss in your report, post office has decided to take no further action in respect of the loss, which will be written off. and they write off authority, look at they write off authority, look at the second page included. scroll down a little bit. this is the unsigned version. i have received a right authority voucher to the value of the amounts which is being cleared from my suspense account, and the voucher is being cleared and the appropriate manner in the cash account number. week number, i am sorry. was that amount, £1041, actually cleared out of your suspense account, so you went back to zero in balancing times? yes. it

did not remain after the shortfall. no. look at the loss authorisation document which we have also referred to a new witness statement. —— in your witness statement. i think this is the loss authorisation documents. i do not think this is something that you saw at the time? this is an internal post office document. that at the time? this is an internal post office document.- post office document. that is correct. you _ post office document. that is correct. you got _ post office document. that is correct. you got disclosure . post office document. that is - correct. you got disclosure later? that is right- _

correct. you got disclosure later? that is right. it _ correct. you got disclosure later? that is right. it has _ correct. you got disclosure later? that is right. it has got _ correct. you got disclosure later? that is right. it has got your - that is right. it has got your branch name _ that is right. it has got your branch name and _ that is right. it has got your branch name and code, - that is right. it has got your branch name and code, the | that is right. it has got your - branch name and code, the amount of money, and it sees the following decision has been made with regard to loss of the above office which relates to an aged shortage which the sub—postmaster and cis was attributable to a horizon system software training failure. —— sub—postmaster said was attributable. sub—postmaster said an amount must be made good, and amount will be written off. the full amount will be written off. the full amount will be written off, sub—postmaster had been sent the appropriate voucher with which to clear the loss of the amount. yes?— voucher with which to clear the loss of the amount. yes? yes. did you see this document. _ of the amount. yes? yes. did you see this document, the writing of a loss, because you said the loss was

attributable to the horizon system, attributable to the horizon system, at the time of the dispute with post office in 2002 and 2003, before termination of your contract? h0. 1 termination of your contract? no, i did not see — termination of your contract? no, i did not see it- _ termination of your contract? no, i did not see it. were _ termination of your contract? no, i did not see it. were you _ termination of your contract? no, i did not see it. were you aware - termination of your contract? no, i did not see it. were you aware at l did not see it. were you aware at that time that _ did not see it. were you aware at that time that the _ did not see it. were you aware at that time that the post _ did not see it. were you aware at that time that the post office - that time that the post office seemingly used the standard form with, delete as appropriate boxes on it? ., ., ., ., i. it? no, i did not. now that you mention it _ it? no, i did not. now that you mention it i — it? no, i did not. now that you mention it i do _ it? no, i did not. now that you mention it i do recall— it? no, i did not. now that you mention it i do recall a - mention it i do recall a conversation that the retail network manager— conversation that the retail network manager had at the time with this department at my office. i only heard _ department at my office. i only heard one _ department at my office. i only heard one side of the conversation. it heard one side of the conversation. it was _ heard one side of the conversation. it was about— heard one side of the conversation. it was about arranging for this write — it was about arranging for this write off— it was about arranging for this write off amount, right off voucher. i write off amount, right off voucher. i seem _ write off amount, right off voucher. i seem to recall, and that stack in memory— i seem to recall, and that stack in memory because of what it was, it is another_ memory because of what it was, it is another one —

memory because of what it was, it is another one. it is one of those little _ another one. it is one of those little things that sticks in the hack— little things that sticks in the back of— little things that sticks in the back of your mind, that was said at the time, _ back of your mind, that was said at the time, when the retail manager was speaking to this department on the phone _ was speaking to this department on the phone arranging the voucher. in any the phone arranging the voucher. any event the phone arranging the voucher. in any event there existed a form in which a loss could be authorised to be written off on the grounds that the sub—postmaster said that loss was attributable to horizon? yes. and that what happens in your case? yes. thank yes. - thank you. yes. — thank you. before you had authorisation to write this loss off, you continue to roll it over from week to week. yes. was that than with knowledge and approval of your retail line manager. approval of your retail line manager-— approval of your retail line manager. approval of your retail line manauer. , ., ., ., , manager. they were aware of it, they were formed — manager. they were aware of it, they were formed that _ manager. they were aware of it, they were formed that that's _ manager. they were aware of it, they were formed that that's what - manager. they were aware of it, they were formed that that's what i - manager. they were aware of it, they were formed that that's what i was i were formed that that's what i was d°iii9~ _

were formed that that's what i was doinu. . were formed that that's what i was doin i _ , ., . ., were formed that that's what i was doinu. , ., ., ., were formed that that's what i was doinu. , ., ., . ., doing. this macro informant. we have heard from some _ doing. this macro informant. we have heard from some post _ doing. this macro informant. we have heard from some post office - doing. this macro informant. we have heard from some post office staff. - heard from some post office staff. that the post office believes that the suspense account was used by sub—postmaster is to cover up theft and fraud. your evidence is that you were being transparent from an early stage in the life of horizon. a new complaints about horizon discrepancies, about the use of the suspense accounts, to hold over disputed psalms, whilst continuing to assert that the money wasn't old, and ought not to be made good? that is correct. and ought not to be made good? that is correct- was _ and ought not to be made good? that is correct. was that _ and ought not to be made good? that is correct. was that practice _ is correct. was that practice challenge? _ is correct. was that practice challenge? not _ is correct. was that practice challenge? not during - is correct. was that practice challenge? not during my l is correct. was that practice - challenge? not during my tenure. i understand — challenge? not during my tenure. i understand it _ challenge? not during my tenure. i understand it was _ challenge? not during my tenure. i understand it was later _ challenge? not during my tenure. i understand it was later on. -

challenge? not during my tenure. i understand it was later on. after i understand it was later on. after that write off _ understand it was later on. after that write off the _ understand it was later on. its that write off the continued to be some shortages, shortfalls, shown on horizon? . . horizon? that is right. uc shortages- _ horizon? that is right. uc shortages. it _ horizon? that is right. uc shortages. it was - horizon? that is right. uc shortages. it was overs i horizon? that is right. uci shortages. it was overs and horizon? that is right. uc— shortages. it was overs and anders. surluses shortages. it was overs and anders. surpluses well? _ shortages. it was overs and anders. surpluses well? surpluses. - shortages. it was overs and anders. surpluses well? surpluses. did - shortages. it was overs and anders. surpluses well? surpluses. did you | surpluses well? surpluses. did you seek to discover _ surpluses well? surpluses. did you seek to discover the _ surpluses well? surpluses. did you seek to discover the cause - surpluses well? surpluses. did you seek to discover the cause of - surpluses well? surpluses. did you seek to discover the cause of the l seek to discover the cause of the surpluses and their shortages? yes. surpluses and their shortages? yes, as much as — surpluses and their shortages? yes, as much as we _ surpluses and their shortages? yes, as much as we could. _ surpluses and their shortages? yes, as much as we could. did _ surpluses and their shortages? yes, as much as we could. did you encounter— as much as we could. did you encounter success? gn as much as we could. did you encounter success? . ., , ., , , encounter success? on occasion, yes. did it remain _ encounter success? on occasion, yes. did it remain that _ encounter success? on occasion, yes. did it remain that a _ encounter success? on occasion, yes. did it remain that a sum _ encounter success? on occasion, yes. did it remain that a sum of _ encounter success? on occasion, yes. did it remain that a sum ofjust - did it remain that a sum ofjust over £1000 was carried as shortage in the suspense account? trio. over £1000 was carried as shortage in the suspense account?— over £1000 was carried as shortage in the suspense account? no, not to my recollection. _ in the suspense account? no, not to my recollection. there _ in the suspense account? no, not to my recollection. there was - in the suspense account? no, not to my recollection. there was a - in the suspense account? no, not to my recollection. there was a claim l my recollection. there was a claim at the _ my recollection. there was a claim at the very— my recollection. there was a claim at the very end of my contract, i think— at the very end of my contract, i think they— at the very end of my contract, i think they said that the office was going _ think they said that the office was going something in the region of

1200, _ going something in the region of 1200, 1000 going something in the region of 1200,1000 £400. it going something in the region of 1200,1000 £400. lf is going something in the region of 1200, 1000 £400.— going something in the region of 1200, 1000 £400. it is that i was referrin: 1200, 1000 £400. it is that i was referring t0- — 1200, 1000 £400. it is that i was referring to. what _ 1200, 1000 £400. it is that i was referring to. what happens - 1200, 1000 £400. it is that i was referring to. what happens was i 1200, 1000 £400. it is that i was . referring to. what happens was that i referring to. what happens was that i refused- -- — referring to. what happens was that i refused... when _ referring to. what happens was that i refused... when we _ referring to. what happens was that i refused. .. when we undertook- referring to. what happens was that i refused... when we undertook ourj i refused... when we undertook our weekly— i refused... when we undertook our weekly balance you were then meant to put _ weekly balance you were then meant to put in_ weekly balance you were then meant to put in money to make up to the figure _ to put in money to make up to the figure or— to put in money to make up to the figure or take money out. i refused to do— figure or take money out. i refused to do that — figure or take money out. i refused to do that i— figure or take money out. i refused to do that. i rolled through the shortages or losses, their shortages or the _ shortages or losses, their shortages or the overs, each time, so it had a running _ or the overs, each time, so it had a running totat. — or the overs, each time, so it had a running total, it was adjusting from week— running total, it was adjusting from week to _ running total, it was adjusting from week to week. because i really did not know— week to week. because i really did not know what the office was up to. i not know what the office was up to. i had _ not know what the office was up to. i had no _ not know what the office was up to. i had no idea. and often, some of these. _ i had no idea. and often, some of these. there — i had no idea. and often, some of these, there had been an error, might— these, there had been an error, might come back in a week or two weeks. _ might come back in a week or two weeks. that— might come back in a week or two weeks, that sort of time, or it could — weeks, that sort of time, or it could he — weeks, that sort of time, or it could he a _ weeks, that sort of time, or it could be a lot longer, when the actual— could be a lot longer, when the actual error was discovered

elsewhere and could be corrected. but i _ elsewhere and could be corrected. but i never — elsewhere and could be corrected. but i never actually reset or zero to the _ but i never actually reset or zero to the system, ijust kept rolling through— to the system, ijust kept rolling through the shortages and losses, and post _ through the shortages and losses, and post office were aware of what i was doing _ and post office were aware of what i was doing. did and post office were aware of what i was doinu. , , ., ., ., ., ., was doing. did the installation of a new retail line _ was doing. did the installation of a new retail line manager— was doing. did the installation of a new retail line manager cause - new retail line manager cause matters to be brought to a head in that respect? eventually, yes. can we look at that? p 244. this is a letter to you dated the 14th of april 2003. reference, losses and gains. just want to read the first part of the first

paragraph. furtherto the first part of the first paragraph. further to our conversation you confirm you have been rolling over losses and gains for the past two years or more. that is what you have just described? yes. is what you have 'ust described? yes. , ., , is what you have 'ust described? yes. ,, , .,, ., is what you have 'ust described? yes. , .,, ., ., ., ., yes. he says, i was not aware of this practice — yes. he says, i was not aware of this practice. then _ yes. he says, i was not aware of this practice. then he _ yes. he says, i was not aware of this practice. then he says, - yes. he says, i was not aware of this practice. then he says, i - yes. he says, i was not aware of this practice. then he says, i am instructing you with immediate effect you are required to make good the outstanding loss and to cease with this current practice of rolling over any losses and gains. can we see you reply? page 145. in receipt of your letter, of april, confirming our conversation regarding losses and gains in our office which have always been rolled over since the installation of horizon. i appreciate you may have been unaware of this practice in the office but many others post office staff knew of this practice. my

comments regarding this are well documented, a number of letters, such as that dated 19th december stop which, like all letters, were sent recorded delivery. the problem with rolling over the losses and gains that i presume i would be accepting liability for them, which is something that i have pointed out in writing to you since the introduction of horizon, i am unable to do, until such time as i'm able to do, until such time as i'm able to access the data that i am being asked to be responsible for. as i've written previously, the inadequate report system has been made so complex it lacks the ability to interrogate the system when you know the information is inside. if i are unable to access the data to check items it is unreasonable to expect me to accept liability from an checkable data. i think that reply speaks for itself. did this exchange of

correspondence, the new retail line manager raising the issue requiring you to make good the shortfall, to cease the practice, ultimately lead to your contract being terminated? i to your contract being terminated? i believe so. page _ to your contract being terminated? i believe so. page 147. _ believe so. page 147. 2nd of _ believe so. page 147. 2nd of may. - believe so. page 147. 2nd of may. thank i believe so. page 147. | 2nd of may. thank you believe so. page 147. - 2nd of may. thank you for your letter of 16th april, the contents of which have been noted. nevertheless i must point out that you are bound by the terms and conditions of your contract for services, which was acknowledged by you on 31st of march 2003. and somebody has written 1998. that was ou? you? yes. you? - yes. accepting you? — yes. accepting your you? yes. acceptin- your appointment. all yes. accepting your appointment. all accounts entrusted to you are kept in the form prescribed by post

office using approved accounting system, therefore in the event of any losses occurring the issue be made good without delay. failure to comply with these obligations can be construed as a breach of contract which could ultimately put your contract for services at risk. i therefore request that you acknowledge the content of the letter within ten days of its posting, confirming that the accounts are being maintained in the correct fashion. and make good the losses, as per your contractual obligations. your reply to that letter, with regard to your letter of 2nd of may, i think you pick up on the typo. you refer me to section 12 of the contract. ratherthan refer me to section 12 of the contract. rather than what he has suggested to you, you are liable to repay all losses, you point out that

section 12 in fact states, the sub—postmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds caused by assistance. deficiencies made by such losses must be made goods without delay. you rightly point out previous terms, make good any losses caused in these manner. but i could see nothing in this clause which states that i am also liable for data i am unable to check. that is a summary of the position that she had been maintaining consistently since installation? yes. to take an extreme, if horizon said i owed £1 million would you see i would have to make good the loss without delay and without question? there is no way i will agree to be held responsible for data i have input until such time as i am able to access the data that i am being

asked to be responsible for. trying to state i have acknowledge such things as terms and conditions of my contract you are proposing to vary this contract. we can skip over the next paragraphs which are about something else. the next page, 150. and then the letter ends. you correct post office on the terms and conditions. you make it clear, the point that many have missed, that the contract does not oblige you to repay all losses. and then you to repay all losses. and then you make a point of emphasis, the million pounds example in your third paragraph. was there any effort by their post office to engage with the points that you are making in this letter?

none at all. never address them. page _ none at all. never address them. page 30 — none at all. never address them. page 30. the same bundle. this in accordance with your contract i am writing to issue you with three months' notice of termination of your contract. this will take effect on the 5th of november 2003. this is the letter that brought your contract to an end?— contract to an end? yes. the letter _ contract to an end? yes. the letter speaks - contract to an end? yes. the letter speaks for - contract to an end? yes. i the letter speaks for itself. contract to an end? yes. - the letter speaks for itself. it gave you no explanation for the reason for termination of your contract. that is correct. was any explanation given to you by post

office at this time?— explanation given to you by post office at this time?- how| explanation given to you by post i office at this time?- how did office at this time? never. how did receivin: office at this time? never. how did receiving this _ office at this time? never. how did receiving this notice _ office at this time? never. how did receiving this notice make - office at this time? never. how did receiving this notice make you i office at this time? never. how did | receiving this notice make you feel? i was annoyed with them. to put it mildly _ i was annoyed with them. to put it mildly i_ i was annoyed with them. to put it mildly. i think i was annoyed with them. to put it mildly. ithink it i was annoyed with them. to put it mildly. i think it was partly expected in a way because it was pretty— expected in a way because it was pretty obvious they were determined, they were _ pretty obvious they were determined, they were after me one way or another~ — they were after me one way or another. the build—up of correspondence over the periods certainly— correspondence over the periods certainly pointing in that direction. but i always found it quite _ direction. but i always found it quite interesting, i pulled the map on the _ quite interesting, i pulled the map on the point about trying to terminate me, my contract under clause _ terminate me, my contract under clause 12 — terminate me, my contract under clause 12 of— terminate me, my contract under clause 12 of the contract, but they didn't— clause 12 of the contract, but they didn't do— clause 12 of the contract, but they didn't do it — clause 12 of the contract, but they didn't do it that way. they decided to go— didn't do it that way. they decided to goiust — didn't do it that way. they decided to gojust under this, any reason they— to gojust under this, any reason they wanted, three months' notice without— they wanted, three months' notice without giving a reason.

it without giving a reason. it is _ without giving a reason. it is without fault, without reason termination, just on three months written notice? yes, that is it. but you had had the £1100 written off? yes. you had had post office acknowledging that it was because of a genuine dispute over whether horizon was to blame for it, over the operation of horizon. you have been rolling over other shortfalls and surpluses since then with post office knowledge and then with post office knowledge and then this arrives? it was a bit strange in a way, because _ it was a bit strange in a way, because we were in a very busy post office _ because we were in a very busy post office in_ because we were in a very busy post office. in fact it was a time when a lot of— office. in fact it was a time when a lot of post — office. in fact it was a time when a lot of post offices were losing trade — lot of post offices were losing trade. but our sales figures were extremely— trade. but our sales figures were extremely high in the region. we had developed _ extremely high in the region. we had developed a lot of new business. but it was— developed a lot of new business. but it was their— developed a lot of new business. but it was their decision to do it. i

did offer. _ it was their decision to do it. i did offer, at one point, when there were _ did offer, at one point, when there were discussions between the retail manager— were discussions between the retail manager and myself, when we were heading _ manager and myself, when we were heading in _ manager and myself, when we were heading in this direction, he was saying. — heading in this direction, he was saying, change your mind, i was seeing. — saying, change your mind, i was seeing. if— saying, change your mind, i was seeing, if you are not happy with the way— seeing, if you are not happy with the way i — seeing, if you are not happy with the way i am providing your service, then pay— the way i am providing your service, then pay us— the way i am providing your service, then pay us back our initial investment and take the post office awav _ investment and take the post office awav i_ investment and take the post office away. i would have investment and take the post office away. iwould have been investment and take the post office away. i would have been quite happy for them _ away. i would have been quite happy for them to— away. i would have been quite happy for them to do that. and i probably wouldn't _ for them to do that. and i probably wouldn't have been here today on that basis — so i felt that they were going to make a lesson of my case because a number of people knew what was going on. t number of people knew what was going on. ~' . . number of people knew what was going on. ~ ., , ,., on. i think it was something the post office _ on. i think it was something the post office like _ on. i think it was something the post office like to _ on. i think it was something the post office like to give - on. i think it was something the post office like to give and i on. i think it was something the post office like to give and give | post office like to give and give lessons — post office like to give and give lessons. ., , ., ., ~' post office like to give and give lessons. ., , ., ., ~ ., ,., post office like to give and give lessons. ., , ., ., lessons. can we 'ust look at some of the mesoning —

lessons. can we just look at some of the reasoning that _ lessons. can we just look at some of the reasoning that the _ lessons. can we just look at some of the reasoning that the post - lessons. can we just look at some of the reasoning that the post office i the reasoning that the post office gave for terminating the contract. can we look at 117538. page 11, please. this is a letter written to an mp, betty williams, in relation to a letter that she wrote as a constituency mp to the then chairman of the post office. it is the 29th of the post office. it is the 29th of october. if we go to the second

page... we can see that