Thread by @nickwallis

Holy sh*t. The Post Office applied a senior executive bonus metric about its work on the Post Office Inquiry (without informing the inquiry). Then it used false information to say it had achieved the metric and awarded the executive bonuses, whilst implying...

... the Inquiry chair had confirmed the false information!!!

postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/news/chairs-st…

#PostOfficeScandal
#PostOfficeInquiry

Post Office lawyers: "At the outset POL wishes to apologise to the Inquiry for setting a target that appeared to require the Chair's participation without asking Sir Wyn for his agreement to that, and for reporting against that target by suggesting the Chair and his team...

... had given input into a particular outcome when they had not."

"POL recognises that the drafting of the metric relating to Inquiry Support should have been put to the Inquiry in circumstances...

... where it incorporated an express requirement for confirmation from the Inquiry and apologises for the fact that it was not. POL will publicly correct the position."

More from the Post Office lawyers: "POL understands that certain materials were reviewed by the then Group Chief People Officer, who relied on them in reporting to the Remuneration Committee that the target had been achieved...

... POL believes the author of the report also took into account other information relating to POL's co- operation with the Inquiry. POL is trying to identify the documents she relied on. In the time available before writing, POL has not been able to locate this material."

[Check the shredder, definitely check the shredder.]

Post Office CEO today:

"I would like to personally apologise to you on behalf of Post Office for the incorrect statement in the company’s Annual Report and Accounts 2021-22, which implies that you and your team commented on the outcome of a remuneration metric...

... targeted at senior leaders involved in the vital task of transformation within the Post Office.
Despite the metric making express reference to the role of you and your team in assessing whether the metric was met, Post Office did not seek...

... your or your team’s view on the proposed metric, far less your agreement to it. Moreover, at the point of assessing whether it had been met, despite the unambiguous wording of the metric, Post Office did not seek...

... your or your team’s view. These were both unacceptable errors on our part.
As a result I have chosen to return the money paid to me associated with this remuneration metric, and the Post Office Board is considering the position...

... in respect of other senior leadership beneficiaries of this remuneration metric."

Well, holy moly, if you want to see the perfect example of corporate greed, incompetence and mendacity rolled into one, you have it in one single example. This...

... is a government owned company setting up a bonus payment about its performance before a public inquiry, not informing the inquiry of the bonus system, making up information to justify the activation of the bonuses and...

... claiming it had been endorsed BY THE CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY!!!

Here's your next column, @MarinaHyde!

@MarinaHyde The best time to bury bad news is late on a Friday afternoon when most of us are going off duty and thinking about the weekend. There's a reason the Post Office CEO replied to Sir Wyn today - they don't want this story to get any traction AT ALL:

postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/correspondence…

Squalid