Thread by @nickwallis

The only new info i can see in this letter from Paul Scully is that the £57.75m settlement announced in Dec 2019 is now being represented as £42.75m plus costs. We have long been led to believe the costs plus funders' success fees left the claimants with circa £12m to share...

https://twitter.com/KateOsborneMP/status/1480573426913972224

... assuming that remains correct then the breakdown of the civil litigation settlement would be:

Lawyers: £15m
Funders: £30.75m
Claimants: £12m

Total: £57.75

Though I am assuming the term "costs" equates to legal fees, which might be wrong. Or the new figure from Scully...

... is a typo (unlikely as he repeats it), or I've made some other erroneous assumption leading to a glaring error. Presentationally it is a bit weird though - why is Scully trying to claim the claimants got £42.75m after costs when for the last two years we've been...

... told the amount the claimants walked away with was £12m between 555. Is he now suggesting it was £42.75m or is he ignoring the funders' success fee?

An eagle-eyed correspondent hast just pointed out the above is far from the only new piece of information - the minister has also announced...

… that the first full and final offer of compensation has been laid on the table:

“The first opening offer for compensation [f]or an Overturned Criminal Convictions has been made.”

Sorry, everyone. Long day.

I hope @darrenpjones or one of his fellow MPs will ask minister Scully tomorrow what that offer is (even if the answer is just in terms of 5, 6, 7, or 8 figures) so that everyone waiting for their compensation can get some sense of whether this is a proper, serious offer or not.

@darrenpjones Biiiig hat tip to @KamranSiema for putting me right on that line I missed.

The dangers of skim-reading and hot-takes, eh?