if you can zoom in on that, you see my main objective for creating the organisation was to expose the truth. i wanted to create a body of sub—postmasters which would provide a community for those going through the same experiences. i knew that i was not alone in my dealings with the post office and the organisation was set up to ensure that other people in the same situation knew that they were not on their own. as mentioned, there was a complete lack of support from the post office and i believe those in similar circumstances require support. i have read elsewhere that one of the reasons that you set up the group was that you and others felt that you had been abandoned by other

organisations we had a group together. organisations we had a group touether. , ~ ., , together. yes, i think that is true, it was myself _ together. yes, i think that is true, it was myself and _ together. yes, i think that is true, it was myself and others _ together. yes, i think that is true, it was myself and others as - together. yes, i think that is true, it was myself and others as well. i j it was myself and others as well. i seem _ it was myself and others as well. i seem to _ it was myself and others as well. i seem to take the lead in it, but there _ seem to take the lead in it, but there were _ seem to take the lead in it, but there were a lot of others certainly in the _ there were a lot of others certainly in the early— there were a lot of others certainly in the early days, there was a great deal of— in the early days, there was a great deal of support. in the early days, there was a great deal of summ— deal of support. which other organisations _ deal of support. which other organisations had _ deal of support. which other| organisations had abandoned deal of support. which other - organisations had abandoned you? deal of support. which other _ organisations had abandoned you? the federation was absolutely useless, it was_ federation was absolutely useless, it wasjust — federation was absolutely useless, it wasjust another federation was absolutely useless, it was just another department of the post— it was just another department of the post office, i believe it still is. ~ ., the post office, i believe it still is. ~ . , ., the post office, i believe it still is. . . , ., 4' the post office, i believe it still is. ~ . ~' , the post office, i believe it still is. what you think they are another department — is. what you think they are another department of _ is. what you think they are another department of the _ is. what you think they are another department of the post _ is. what you think they are another department of the post office? - is. what you think they are another department of the post office? i i department of the post office? i think at one time they had the office — think at one time they had the office in— think at one time they had the office in the post office headquarters. but ignoring that, it depends— headquarters. but ignoring that, it depends which way we are going. if you go— depends which way we are going. if you go right back to the early days, around _ you go right back to the early days, around 2003 where i was going to these _ around 2003 where i was going to these federation meetings, i attended one meeting where a sub—postmaster at the back of the

meeting. — sub—postmaster at the back of the meeting, he started saying i have 'ust meeting, he started saying i have just had _ meeting, he started saying i have just had my post office taken off me. just had my post office taken off me i'm — just had my post office taken off me. i'm the federation exec people escorted _ me. i'm the federation exec people escorted him out of the back of the place _ escorted him out of the back of the place. they— escorted him out of the back of the place. they took him away out of that meeting. i know perfectly well when _ that meeting. i know perfectly well when my— that meeting. i know perfectly well when my contract was terminated, i went went _ when my contract was terminated, i went went to a federation meeting, a local branch, — went went to a federation meeting, a local branch, where i tried to speak on behalf— local branch, where i tried to speak on behalf of— local branch, where i tried to speak on behalf of that. there was one of the national executive federation members at that meeting, and he tried to _ members at that meeting, and he tried to stop me speaking. he refused. — tried to stop me speaking. he refused, to let me talk about such things _ refused, to let me talk about such things and — refused, to let me talk about such things. and if it hadn't been for the local— things. and if it hadn't been for the local chairman at the time, if it hadn't— the local chairman at the time, if it hadn't been for him moving this chap _ it hadn't been for him moving this

chap out — it hadn't been for him moving this chap out of— it hadn't been for him moving this chap out of the way, i would have never _ chap out of the way, i would have never been — chap out of the way, i would have never been able to explain what had happened _ never been able to explain what had happened to me. there was an awful lot of— happened to me. there was an awful lot of pressure from the federation to support — lot of pressure from the federation to support the post office. in fact, i don't _ to support the post office. in fact, i don't know— to support the post office. in fact, i don't know if you can show it, there _ i don't know if you can show it, there is— i don't know if you can show it, there is correspondence from the federation where they actually support— federation where they actually support the post office position in terminating my contract. i don't terminating my contract. idon't know— terminating my contract. i don't know whether you are going to cover that _ know whether you are going to cover that. ,, , know whether you are going to cover that. . , ., know whether you are going to cover that. ,, , ., ., ., know whether you are going to cover that, ,, , ., ., ., “ that. slightly out of order, i think i know... sorry! _ that. slightly out of order, i think i know... sorry! you _ that. slightly out of order, i think i know... sorry! you asked - that. slightly out of order, i think i know... sorry! you asked me. l that. slightly out of order, i think. i know... sorry! you asked me. i'm the one who _ i know... sorry! you asked me. i'm the one who is _ i know... sorry! you asked me. i'm the one who is supposed _ i know... sorry! you asked me. i'm the one who is supposed to - i know... sorry! you asked me. i'm the one who is supposed to build i the one who is supposed to build the fastballs. if i can drive it back, it is pol to 21504. if fastballs. if i can drive it back, it is pol to 21504.— it is pol to 21504. if you are riaht, it is pol to 21504. if you are right. that _ it is pol to 21504. if you are right. that is _ it is pol to 21504. if you are right, that is a _ it is pol to 21504. if you are right, that is a good - it is pol to 21504. if you are right, that is a good slip - it is pol to 21504. if you are i

right, that is a good slip catch. it is pol to 21504. if you are - right, that is a good slip catch. is right, that is a good slip catch. [55 that right, that is a good slip catch. that the right, that is a good slip catch. is that the document you are talking about? a letter to you from colin baker, the general secretary? yes. you had written _ baker, the general secretary? yes. you had written a _ baker, the general secretary? yes. you had written a couple of letters to him, i won't show them now. from december and january 2004, and he notes that betty williams has written to allan leighton, he says i can go no higher, i am sure your mp will have as much if not more success. hopefully you will have more information from that route. and then the last paragraph is when you are referring to, we are not in a position to provide information

regarding sub—postmaster�*s dealings. we are aware that there are some dealings around the time, officers migrated from the manual system to the horizon system, we are now of the horizon system, we are now of the view that horizon works well and there are no real problems with post offices which are operated by the horizon system. was that essentially the position as communicated to you? horizon works well and there are no problems? horizon works well and there are no roblems? . �* horizon works well and there are no roblems? , ~ ., , , problems? yes. and it was very much... problems? yes. and it was very much- -- the — problems? yes. and it was very much... the federation - problems? yes. and it was very much... the federation always| problems? yes. and it was very - much... the federation always seem to try— much... the federation always seem to try and _ much... the federation always seem to try and manage problems around horizon _ to try and manage problems around horizon i_ to try and manage problems around horizon. i can recall a federation conference. _ horizon. i can recall a federation conference, i think in 2002, it was in llandudno, which is why i went to it. in llandudno, which is why i went to it there _ in llandudno, which is why i went to it. there were a whole host of people —

it. there were a whole host of people raising queries about horizon during _ people raising queries about horizon during the _ people raising queries about horizon during the conference. and it got such— during the conference. and it got such a _ during the conference. and it got such a state that they couldn't move on and _ such a state that they couldn't move on and conference decided to set up a separate _ on and conference decided to set up a separate committee to look into horizon _ a separate committee to look into horizon issues, and for members to report— horizon issues, and for members to report to _ horizon issues, and for members to report to them. and they would then discuss _ report to them. and they would then discuss them with post office. two what extent _ discuss them with post office. two what extent have _ discuss them with post office. “i"nrrr what extent have they assisted you in establishing the facts of your case? ., ., , ., ., case? none. the map to what extent have they assisted _ case? none. the map to what extent have they assisted you _ case? none. the map to what extent have they assisted you in _ case? none. the map to what extent have they assisted you in seeking - have they assisted you in seeking redress? — have they assisted you in seeking redress? none. to have they assisted you in seeking redress? none.— have they assisted you in seeking redress? none. to your knowledge what role did _ redress? none. to your knowledge what role did they _ redress? none. to your knowledge what role did they have _ redress? none. to your knowledge what role did they have in - redress? none. to your knowledge j what role did they have in assisting sub—postmasters when it was alleged that they had a shortfall? i that they had a shortfall? i have not heard of— that they had a shortfall? i have not heard of one _ that they had a shortfall? i have not heard of one instance - that they had a shortfall? i have not heard of one instance where that they had a shortfall? i have - not heard of one instance where the successfully did anything of that nature — successfully did anything of that nature. ., , ., , ., successfully did anything of that nature. ., , ., ., nature. you tell us that you have been informed _ nature. you tell us that you have been informed that _ nature. you tell us that you have been informed that the - nature. you tell us that you have been informed that the post - nature. you tell us that you have i been informed that the post office would only allow a representative of

the federation or a friend to sit in on interviews where suspension or termination was contemplated? that is correct. termination was contemplated? that is correct- you _ termination was contemplated? that is correct. you tell _ termination was contemplated? that is correct. you tell us _ termination was contemplated? that is correct. you tell us that _ termination was contemplated? that is correct. you tell us that they - is correct. you tell us that they need always — is correct. you tell us that they need always agreed _ is correct. you tell us that they need always agreed with - is correct. you tell us that they need always agreed with the i need always agreed with the post office and said some time to the postmaster, own up and tell them what you did with the money. yes. are these accounts _ what you did with the money. yes. are these accounts that _ what you did with the money. yes. are these accounts that others have given to you?— are these accounts that others have given to you? yes. to your knowledge has a federation ever helped a sub—postmaster in a court case where the integrity of the horizon system or its data has been questioned? trio. or its data has been questioned? no. to what extent _ or its data has been questioned? no. to what extent did they assist in group litigation?— to what extent did they assist in i group litigation?_ how group litigation? none at all. how they assisted _ group litigation? none at all. how they assisted others _ group litigation? none at all. how they assisted others getting - they assisted others getting address? i they assisted others getting address? ., �* ,, ., they assisted others getting address?_ if i they assisted others getting | address?_ if we they assisted others getting - address?_ if we can go address? i don't know. if we can go back to where _ address? i don't know. if we can go back to where we _ address? i don't know. if we can go back to where we were _

address? i don't know. if we can go back to where we were in _ address? i don't know. if we can go back to where we were in the - back to where we were in the account. you set up thejfsa and you tell us that from the late 2000 is onwards, from about 2009 onwards, you spent an estimated 30—40 hours a week campaigning in relation to post office and horizon, is that right? easily, yes. office and horizon, is that right? easily. yes-— office and horizon, is that right? easil , es. . ., paragraph 87, at the top. you say the challenges were faced in every step of the way since the post

office would obstruct me. the gravity of the problem was not recognised by others in power including government and it became clear that the only way to achieve progress was through reform or legal route which has its own challenges including obtaining the necessary funding for the route. you say that challengers were faced at every step of the way. since the post office would obstruct. what did you have in mind? , ,. , would obstruct. what did you have in mind? ,,. ,., would obstruct. what did you have in mind? , ,. ,., would obstruct. what did you have in mind? , ,. ., mind? disclosure is a good one. they... before _ mind? disclosure is a good one. they... before we _ mind? disclosure is a good one. they... before we got _ mind? disclosure is a good one. they... before we got to - mind? disclosure is a good one. they... before we got to the - mind? disclosure is a good one. l they... before we got to the court case: _ they... before we got to the court case, we _ they... before we got to the court case, we went through a whole host of schemes, — case, we went through a whole host of schemes, they always said yes we will be _ of schemes, they always said yes we will be supportive, we will try. we will be supportive, we will try. we will get _ will be supportive, we will try. we will get on — will be supportive, we will try. we will get on board, we are looking for the _ will get on board, we are looking for the truth. but all they did is cause _ for the truth. but all they did is cause problems. they were not forthcoming with details, certainly disclosure — forthcoming with details, certainly disclosure is a very good example of that _ disclosure is a very good example of that cases—

disclosure is a very good example of that. cases used to take months and months _ that. cases used to take months and months to— that. cases used to take months and months to progress. i am thinking of the initial— months to progress. i am thinking of the initial mediation scheme, for example — the initial mediation scheme, for example. you just felt that though they were — example. you just felt that though they were there, you were still hanging — they were there, you were still banging your head against a wall to -et banging your head against a wall to get anything out of them. because they were — get anything out of them. because they were determined to protect the brand _ they were determined to protect the brand at— they were determined to protect the brand at any cost. and they didn't want _ brand at any cost. and they didn't want anything coming out or being disclosed — want anything coming out or being disclosed that could cause damage to the post _ disclosed that could cause damage to the post office. you disclosed that could cause damage to the post office.— the post office. you stopped work in november 2003. _ the post office. you stopped work in november 2003. and _ the post office. you stopped work in november 2003. and i _ the post office. you stopped work in november 2003. and i think you - november 2003. and i think you haven't returned to other work since then because instead, you have dedicated to campaigning for accountability, justice and redress? yes, the key issue has always been to expose _ yes, the key issue has always been to expose the truth. right from the

outset, _ to expose the truth. right from the outset, because the other things always— outset, because the other things always felt like they followed on. once _ always felt like they followed on. once you — always felt like they followed on. once you know the truth, the rest will hopefully follow on afterwards. i will hopefully follow on afterwards. i didn't _ will hopefully follow on afterwards. i didn't set out to spend 20 years doing _ i didn't set out to spend 20 years doing this — i didn't set out to spend 20 years doing this. i hadn't expected to be doing _ doing this. i hadn't expected to be doing this — doing this. i hadn't expected to be doing this so much by myself. but it -ot doing this so much by myself. but it got more _ doing this so much by myself. but it got more and more complex, and it was harder— got more and more complex, and it was harder and harder to share out work— was harder and harder to share out work as— was harder and harder to share out work as a _ was harder and harder to share out work as a bigger group. to take things— work as a bigger group. to take things forward. i did finish sort of leading _ things forward. i did finish sort of leading in— things forward. i did finish sort of leading in a — things forward. i did finish sort of leading in a way, but going back to the others — leading in a way, but going back to the others when there was opportunity for their endorsement. it opportunity for their endorsement. |. ., opportunity for their endorsement. i . ., ., , ., opportunity for their endorsement. |. ., ., , ., ., it one of the things that we did do was we brought _ it one of the things that we did do was we brought people _ it one of the things that we did do

was we brought people together. | it one of the things that we did do | was we brought people together. i don't _ was we brought people together. i don't mean this in a derogatory way, people _ don't mean this in a derogatory way, people were — don't mean this in a derogatory way, people were like stray lambs, they were lost, — people were like stray lambs, they were lost, wandering around, wondering what have i done? they were _ wondering what have i done? they were suffering but once you manage to bring _ were suffering but once you manage to bring them together to meet others — to bring them together to meet others in — to bring them together to meet others in a similar situation, it had _ others in a similar situation, it had an— others in a similar situation, it had an enormous effect. you spent two decades _ had an enormous effect. you spent two decades undertaking _ had an enormous effect. you spent two decades undertaking this - two decades undertaking this work, presumably thousands of hours. yes. wh was presumably thousands of hours. yes. why was that — presumably thousands of hours. yes. why was that necessary? because i presumably thousands of hours. yes. | why was that necessary? because the further down — why was that necessary? because the further down the _ why was that necessary? because the further down the road _ why was that necessary? because the further down the road you _ why was that necessary? because the further down the road you went - why was that necessary? because the further down the road you went with l further down the road you went with it, further down the road you went with it. the _ further down the road you went with it. the more — further down the road you went with it, the more you realised you couldn't— it, the more you realised you couldn't it _ it, the more you realised you couldn't it go. i it, the more you realised you couldn't it go.— it, the more you realised you couldn't it go. i think you at one state couldn't it go. i think you at one stage attempted _ couldn't it go. i think you at one stage attempted the _ couldn't it go. i think you at one stage attempted the strategy i couldn't it go. i think you at one stage attempted the strategy ofj stage attempted the strategy of speaking to government about this. yes. . . speaking to government about this. yes. . , ., .

yes. can be turned to correspondence with ed davey — yes. can be turned to correspondence with ed davey mp. _ yes. can be turned to correspondence with ed davey mp. to _ yes. can be turned to correspondence with ed davey mp. to put _ yes. can be turned to correspondence with ed davey mp. to put this - yes. can be turned to correspondence with ed davey mp. to put this into - with ed davey mp. to put this into context, to orientate ourselves, may 2010, jfsa was well established. yes. . ., , 2010, jfsa was well established. yes. .., , ~' , 2010, jfsa was well established. yes. , ,, , ., . ., yes. the computer weekly article had been written — yes. the computer weekly article had been written in _ yes. the computer weekly article had been written in may _ yes. the computer weekly article had been written in may 2009 _ yes. the computer weekly article had been written in may 2009 and - yes. the computer weekly article had been written in may 2009 and you i been written in may 2009 and you were interviewed as part of the work. . . . were interviewed as part of the work. , ., , . were interviewed as part of the work-_ the i were interviewed as part of the work. , ., , . the work work. yes, that is correct. the work drew together— work. yes, that is correct. the work drew together facts _ work. yes, that is correct. the work drew together facts about _ work. yes, that is correct. the work drew together facts about a - work. yes, that is correct. the work drew together facts about a number of cases. siam can we look at the letter, as we can see from the way you have addressed the letter, at the top the

minister for postal affairs within the department of business, innovation and skills. to put his position in context, he was the then minister for postal affairs, the position in context, he was the then ministerfor postal affairs, the new government having been formed 14 days earlier, on the 6th of may 2010. the general election was 6th of may. can we read the letter? you say, i am writing in regards on behalf ofjfsa, we are a independent group of postmasters who have suffered at the hands of the post office and horizon system. our website outlines how we came about and our aims is was offering sample cases that were provided by some of

the group. currently the group numbers close to 100 but we continue to bejoined by others who have learnt ofjfsa and have found there's nowhere else to turn for help. in every instance, the post office acts as judge, jury and executioner and the individual is deserted by their representative organisation, invariably these cases flow from the floors of the horizon system that the post office introduced and refused to admit has ever suffered from a single problem. the evidence is there to be found by anyone, and instead of placing barriers to those pursuing information, our organisation has a number of specialist that can analyse data if required. though, an independent external investigation, instigated at ministerial level would be most appropriate and without doubt would easily find

evidence of the error ridden system. i'm sure that you will appreciate that there is not a single computer system that does not from time to time suffer errors, especially when the complexity of the programme is associated with the horizon system. the post office blindly state that they have never been any system errors, anything wrong is the responsibility of the sub—postmaster, that is what they have agreed to when signing the contract. this is a contract that was produced in 1994 and does not address new technology, they are still using it to intimidate and prosecute new sub—postmasters. the rate of evidence we have been collating over the years continues to grow and gain standing. it is only the flat refusal of the post office to examine the system that is holding back the scandal. with the growing numbers injfsa and the support we are now finding from the

it community and media, it is only a matter of time until the real truth is exposed. over the years, i have submitted written details of all of this to the select committee of the dti, and put simply, the information has been buried or disappeared. others atjfsa have followed the route of contacting mps who have taken the matter up, subsequently they are stonewalled or handled by they are stonewalled or handled by the post office often with off—the—shelf answers where the only change the name and address. i am writing on behalf of the group, asking for a meeting where we can present our case. much has appeared over the last few days that government is going to change and i hope that is true. if it is the abuse of supposed masses that has been going on under the protection of the previous government may come to an end. your letter to the mp

provides some detail either in the body of the letter or cross—referencing from the website as to the issues that sub—postmasters were facing and informs him that the post office's conduct amounted to a scandal. uchenna kanu yes, very much. can we look at the reply, please. dear alan bates, thank you for your letter requesting a meeting. since 2001 when the royal mail were set up as a public limited company, the government has adopted an arm's—length relationship with a company so that it has a commercial freedom. the integrity of the post office system is it contractual matter for the post office and not

the government. and while i appreciate your concerns, i do not believe that a meeting would serve any useful purpose. you tell us in your witness statement, that you took offence at the term arm's—length, to describe the role that the government played in relation to overseeing and monitoring the post office. why? it monitoring the post office. why? it is because of the structure, the government is the sole shareholder and the _ government is the sole shareholder and the owners of all of this. how can you _ and the owners of all of this. how can you run — and the owners of all of this. how can you run or take control, take responsibility for an organisation without— responsibility for an organisation without having some interest in trying _ without having some interest in trying to — without having some interest in trying to be in control? government were pumping huge amounts of money into post— were pumping huge amounts of money into post office year after year, so they need — into post office year after year, so they need to be held responsible. they need —

they need to be held responsible. they need to be addressed about the way that— they need to be addressed about the way that they have been going on. it is very— way that they have been going on. it is very hard — way that they have been going on. it is very hard to engage them in it. not nowadays, they are a bit more interested — not nowadays, they are a bit more interested these days but at that time to— interested these days but at that time to get the government to take it seriously... time to get the government to take it seriously- - -_ it seriously... before the drama on tv? the drama _ it seriously... before the drama on tv? the drama was _ it seriously... before the drama on tv? the drama was great, - it seriously... before the drama on tv? the drama was great, it - it seriously... before the drama on tv? the drama was great, it has i it seriously... before the drama on i tv? the drama was great, it has done a lot for us- — tv? the drama was great, it has done a lot for us- we _ tv? the drama was great, it has done a lot for us. we have _ tv? the drama was great, it has done a lot for us. we have had _ tv? the drama was great, it has done a lot for us. we have had enormous i a lot for us. we have had enormous cross-party— a lot for us. we have had enormous cross—party support from many mps, some _ cross—party support from many mps, some of— cross—party support from many mps, some of who _ cross—party support from many mps, some of who you will see shortly. the time — some of who you will see shortly. the time this letter was written, 2010, _ the time this letter was written, 2010, that — the time this letter was written, 2010, that time we were involved in a phone _ 2010, that time we were involved in a phone call— 2010, that time we were involved in a phone call with a law firm and there _ a phone call with a law firm and there have _ a phone call with a law firm and there have been a number of people coming _ there have been a number of people coming together. the firm had worked with the _ coming together. the firm had worked with the mp. a number of the other

mp5 with the mp. a number of the other mps were _ with the mp. a number of the other mp5 were finding their own mps were finding their own constituents who had problems, so it was starting to become a little more gelled _ was starting to become a little more gelled as— was starting to become a little more gelled as an organisation. and the number, _ gelled as an organisation. and the number, growing number in there. and it was— number, growing number in there. and it was very— number, growing number in there. and it was very much why we felt government should have been involved in that— government should have been involved in that time _ government should have been involved in that time. you show me this latter— in that time. you show me this letter from _ in that time. you show me this letter from the mp, i don't know what _ letter from the mp, i don't know what your— letter from the mp, i don't know what your script is, i am more concerned _ what your script is, i am more concerned about another letter that came _ concerned about another letter that came in— concerned about another letter that came in response from a letter i wrote _ came in response from a letter i wrote to — came in response from a letter i wrote to ed _ came in response from a letter i wrote to ed davey, i am not sure whether_ wrote to ed davey, i am not sure whether you will go to that. let�*s whether you will go to that. let's see. you tell— whether you will go to that. let's see. you tell us _ whether you will go to that. let's see. you tell us in _ whether you will go to that. let's see. you tell us in your -

whether you will go to that. let�*s see. you tell us in your witness statement, paragraph 104, that this response from the mp was disappointing because he had not taken into account anything you had said in your letter. and indeed appeared to be a template form of response. siryes. appeared to be a template form of response. sir yes. you didn't keep those feelings to yourself, you sent a reply, onjuly 2010. can we look at it. you say, i have to say that your response dated 31st of may regarding the very serious issues i had raised, was not only disappointing but i found your comments offensive.

it seems though that there are new politicians imposed, the government hasn't the letter is little different that what i received it years ago, many more lives have been ruined in the interim because of the same attitude. it is not that you can't get involved or cannot investigate the matter, after all you own 100% of the shares and normally shareholders are concerned about the morality of the business they own. it is because you have adopted an arm's—length nation ship that you have allowed a once great institution to be asset stripped by thugs in suits, and you have enabled them to carry on with impunity regardless of the human misery and suffering they inflict. you can listen to your civil servants telling you that these are an operational matter for the post office to deal with, you can even listen to the post office telling you that horizon is wonderful, that

there has never been a problem. it is inherently robust and these are just a few malcontents trying to cause trouble, or you can meet and hear the real truth behind horizon and what the post office is up to. your civil servants and the post office will not tell you about post office will not tell you about post office staff harassing sub—postmasters, they won't tell you that the post office fails to provide any help and waits until the problem shows a loss of more than £20,000 so the sub—postmaster. all. they won't tell you that when some of you wants to sell their post office, they will decline the applicant to drive the business into the ground. you won't hear about asking for audits of offices and having to wait up to five years for someone to turn up. in a office

turning over £5 million a year. neither will they tell you cases where the post office has run audit, closed the business and bankrupted the owner, holds a pending court case and then dropped the charges. nor will they tell you about how they are stopping sub—postmasters telling their side. they want even telling their side. they want even tell you that the horizon system is designed to entrap sub—postmasters so they can finish up in prison just by trying to open up the day after a trading period balance. this isjust a taste of some of the paps as the company is going out in your name, they brandish a big legal stick, failed to provide evidence and rely on clause in the old contract about sub—master being liable for any loss. but their shoddy horizon system is the root of all of this.

the post office owe thousands of pounds though there staff are not treated guilty until innocent but sub—postmasters are. the whole scandal is on the edge of a precipice but it is not too late for you to convene a meeting to discuss theissue, you to convene a meeting to discuss the issue, if you are prepared to keep an open mind. it seems that following your letter, the mp agreed to a meeting. siryes, ithink following your letter, the mp agreed to a meeting. sir yes, i think so. in paragraph 100, you confirm that you attended a meeting on or about the 7th of october. i knew tell us that you don't have a note of the meeting, and can't recall details of the meeting. the inquiry�*s

imposition of a briefing document for the purposes of his attendance at that meeting with you, can we see if we can look at that? it is dated the 5th of october 2010. the purpose of the document is a rescheduled meeting with you on the 7th of october. ., ., ., . ~ ~ october. you are watching the bbc news, october. you are watching the bbc news. coverage — october. you are watching the bbc news, coverage of— october. you are watching the bbc news, coverage of the _ october. you are watching the bbc news, coverage of the horizon - october. you are watching the bbc news, coverage of the horizon it. news, coverage of the horizon it scandal. we have been hearing from alan bates who has been fighting for accountability. we will continue our coverage shortly. the accountability. we will continue our coverage shortly.— accountability. we will continue our coverage shortly. the background to the meeting- -- _

today at 1:00pm, a man has been arrested in connection with the fatal stabbing of a young mother in bradford. habibur masum was arrested in aylesbury in buckinghamshire after a nationwide appeal to find him. also this lunchtime, battered britain yet again, with gale force winds and heavy rain and flood warnings across the country. and flood warnings we and flood warnings will be live here in west sussex and we will be live here in west sussex and right across the south where there has been flooding overnight and some dramatic rescues. alan bates, the lead campaigner in the post office it scandal, tells the public inquiry of his fight for justice for the subpostmasters. the women in switzerland who've won a landmark legal case against their government for not doing enough to tackle climate change.

and the king is presented with a new banknote for a new era, due to be in circulation this summer. and coming up on bbc news, the quarterfinals of the champions league get under way later. holders manchester city face real madrid in spain, while arsenal host bayern munich in the first leg. good afternoon and welcome to the bbc news at one. detectives in west yorkshire investigating the fatal stabbing of a young mother in bradford have arrested a 25—year—old man in aylesbury in buckinghamshire. habibur masum will be questioned about the attack on kulsuma akter, who was pushing her baby in a pram on saturday in bradford city centre. our correspondent danny savage has the very latest. his image has been everywhere for days, but habibur masum

has now been detained.