Tag: False narratives

Nick Wallis Told The Public Embezzler & Fraudster Seema Misra Committed Perjury (Part 45)

Josephine Hamilton
Seema Misra
Nick Wallis

Who Was Lying: Seema Misra, Nick Wallis Or Deluded Josephine Hamilton To The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry?

On the 11th of May 2009 Rebecca Thomson wrote and published an article for Computer Weekly (Read here).

Rebecca Thomson – Courtesy of the Mirror here

At some point after Rebecca Thomson’s article was published, and before Seema Misra’s trial was due to start, Seema apparently “turned up” at the shop of Josephine Hamilton.

Josephine Hamilton stated in her 2nd witness statement to the inquiry;

Seema Misra (a fellow sub-postmaster) saw the computer weekly article and turned up at my shop.

I took her to my solicitor and neighbour Issy Hogg.

Excerpts from Josephine Hamilton’s 10th of February 2022 statement of truth to the post office horizon IT inquiry here

The following excerpts are taken from Seema Misra’s trial testimony (from p.136 here);

  • Warwick Tatford: You did some research on the internet? 
  • Seema Misra: No, just the day before my first trial and there was like, then there was like, there was an article from a computer weekly which is like when I read the cases the same thing happen with me as well like figures doubling up, we are having losses and..
  • Warwick Tatford: All right. Let me just cut the matter clearly if I may because this is new information for the jury. There have been some articles about whether the Horizon system is any good or not in various magazines, is that right, that you saw prior to your…
  • Seema Misra: The day before my first trial
  • Warwick Tatford: All right. So earlier in the history of the court proceedings you were aware that other people were saying there might be a problem?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah, and then I read and the same thing happen with me as well when I read that incident and I remember staff saying that as well, there could be a system problem
  • Warwick Tatford: Fine. I fully accept that that might have given you thought about another possibility. So let us leave that on one side. What I want to understand though is why in defence statements you only talk about theft. You don’t mention until the defence statement that was served in January of this year anything in that old defence statement about Junaid, about Michael and about how there were losses from the beginning. You don’t mention anything about that at all, do you?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah. That is what I said. Like when I got that Javed and Nadia red handed they been nicking the money. That is what I thought that time
  • Warwick Tatford: But you knew, Mrs Misra, that the losses had begun in 2005 from day one?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: So it could not just be down to the thieves because they were happening when you were with Junaid?
  • Seema Misra: I was in – I was in complete mess anyway. I was not like pinpointing what is here and what is not. I was in like whole lot of mess. I was struggling with one counter, then I like because I was struggling trying to find where more money was going so like I was trying to like created more work for me because I was going on like a complete mess. So when I got them red handed I thought like it be them who were nicking the money
  • Warwick Tatford: You see, I suggest, Mrs Misra, that you were setting out one defence in your interview, theft. You were setting out one defence in your first defence statement, theft by employees. You then in a second defence statement add a whole raft of detail that you knew about at the time of your Post Office interview and at the time of your first defence statement. I am suggesting that these new additions have come because you have invented them?
  • Seema Misra: No
  • Warwick Tatford: You didn’t mention them earlier because they are simply not true?
  • Seema Misra: I didn’t invent them. This incident happened
  • Warwick Tatford: You know perfectly well, do you not, that in relation to some of those things you have read in articles that the prosecution have looked carefully at other complaints, have they not, and you have been disclosed material in relation to Calendar Square because that is an objective piece of material that gives a cause for concern about Horizon. You understand all that process, do you not?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: But you understand that the Post Office at the request of you and your solicitors have fully researched other articles and other suggestions of problems? You are aware of that, are you not?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah, that is right
  • Warwick Tatford: Thank you. So is it a case of you jumping on a bandwagon when you read something that might give you a hope and adding a few extra false limbs to your defence?
  • Seema Misra: No. If you recall, in my, I think it was Mr Dunks’ calls, I did make the calls on that, the losses as well and when Chesterfield transfer me to Horizon that…
  • Warwick Tatford: Yes, but you only made calls about the £6,000 loss according to Mr Dunks
  • Seema Misra: And when we go into the call there isn’t the call that I have been speaking to Chesterfield for two weeks and they ask me to ring Horizon help desk. There was a call, was it not? I think so
  • Warwick Tatford: I suggest there may have been some sort of disagreement with your staff and that prompted you to call the helpline, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that disagreement it does not go anywhere near to explaining why you were lacking £74,000?

Nick Wallis wrongly states in his book The Great Post Office Scandal;

As Seema’s trial date of 1 June 2009 approached, various preparatory hearings took place.

Excerpt by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021

Seema Misra’s trial was due to start on Tuesday the 2nd of June 2009 – this fact was established during the 15th November 2023 inquiry evidence of prosecuting lawyer Warwick Tatford.

Hornswoggler Nick Wallis’s version of events differs from what Josephine Hamilton told the inquiry, in her “statement of truth”.

Below are further excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book;

The day before her trial, a desperate Seema was searching on the internet.

One of her search queries seemed to return a lifeline. ‘I put in something like “Post Office court case help,” ’ she said, ‘and Jo came up!’ A local news website was carrying the story of Jo Hamilton’s conviction.

Seema called Davinder in excitement. They decided to try to contact Jo. Even though the Post Office had long gone, Jo was still working behind the retail counter at South Warnborough Village Stores. South Warnborough Village Stores also just happened to be open on a Sunday, serving afternoon tea. Jo remembers taking Seema’s call. ‘She kept saying, “You’ve got to help me. You’ve got to help me.” She was crying and in a terrible state.’

The two women bonded on the phone. Jo told Seema about the journalist from Computer Weekly who had put together an investigation into Horizon.

These revelations seemed extraordinary to Seema and Davinder, who believed they were the only ones having problems with Horizon, because that’s what the Post Office had told them. Seema begged Jo for help.

Realising how little time was left, Jo ran over the road to Issy’s house and told her about Seema. Issy called up the Computer Weekly article on her computer. Jo wanted to know if there was anything that could be done. When Issy later told me about this dramatic moment, she laughed. ‘It was the day before the trial. Way too late. There was literally nothing I could do. Seema wasn’t even my client. I suggested to Jo that Seema should take a copy of the magazine to court, show it to the judge and ask for an adjournment.’

Jo ran back across the road, called Seema and explained what she had to do. The next day, Seema’s barrister approached the trial judge.

Excerpts by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021

The “day before” Seema Misra’s trial was Monday the 1st of June 2009.

If Nick Wallis’s version of events is true, that Seema Misra contacted Josephine Hamilton on Sunday the 31st of May 2009.

Then Seema Misra wilfully made a false statement during her trial and committed perjury.

Why does Nick Wallis’s version of events differ to Josephine Hamilton’s version of events?

And why does Nick Wallis have Josephine Hamilton running “back across the road” to phone Seema Misra, if Seema was already at Josephine Hamilton’s shop?

The Lies & Deception Of Embezzler & Fraudster Seema Misra & Hornswoggler Nick Wallis – Includes Statement Of Truth By Josephine Hamilton (Part 45)

Josephine Hamilton
Seema Misra
Nick Wallis


On the 11th of May 2009 Rebecca Thomson wrote and published an article for Computer Weekly here.

At some point after Rebecca Thomson’s article was published, and before her trial was due to start on Tuesday 2nd June 2009, Seema Misra apparently “turned up” at the shop of Josephine Hamilton.

Josephine Hamilton stated in her 2nd witness statement to the post office Horizon IT inquiry;

Seema Misra (a fellow sub-postmaster) saw the computer weekly article and turned up at my shop. I took her to my solicitor and neighbour Issy Hogg. Issy managed to get the trial adjourned while a computer expert was appointed.

Excerpts from Josephine Hamilton’s 10th of February 2022 statement of truth to the post office horizon IT inquiry here

The following excerpts are taken from Seema Misra’s trial testimony (from p.136 here);

  • Warwick Tatford: You did some research on the internet? 
  • Seema Misra: No, just the day before my first trial and there was like, then there was like, there was an article from a computer weekly which is like when I read the cases the same thing happen with me as well like figures doubling up, we are having losses and..
  • Warwick Tatford: All right. Let me just cut the matter clearly if I may because this is new information for the jury. There have been some articles about whether the Horizon system is any good or not in various magazines, is that right, that you saw prior to your…
  • Seema Misra: The day before my first trial
  • Warwick Tatford: All right. So earlier in the history of the court proceedings you were aware that other people were saying there might be a problem?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah, and then I read and the same thing happen with me as well when I read that incident and I remember staff saying that as well, there could be a system problem
  • Warwick Tatford: Fine. I fully accept that that might have given you thought about another possibility. So let us leave that on one side. What I want to understand though is why in defence statements you only talk about theft. You don’t mention until the defence statement that was served in January of this year anything in that old defence statement about Junaid, about Michael and about how there were losses from the beginning. You don’t mention anything about that at all, do you?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah. That is what I said. Like when I got that Javed and Nadia red handed they been nicking the money. That is what I thought that time
  • Warwick Tatford: But you knew, Mrs Misra, that the losses had begun in 2005 from day one?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: So it could not just be down to the thieves because they were happening when you were with Junaid?
  • Seema Misra: I was in – I was in complete mess anyway. I was not like pinpointing what is here and what is not. I was in like whole lot of mess. I was struggling with one counter, then I like because I was struggling trying to find where more money was going so like I was trying to like created more work for me because I was going on like a complete mess. So when I got them red handed I thought like it be them who were nicking the money
  • Warwick Tatford: You see, I suggest, Mrs Misra, that you were setting out one defence in your interview, theft. You were setting out one defence in your first defence statement, theft by employees. You then in a second defence statement add a whole raft of detail that you knew about at the time of your Post Office interview and at the time of your first defence statement. I am suggesting that these new additions have come because you have invented them?
  • Seema Misra: No
  • Warwick Tatford: You didn’t mention them earlier because they are simply not true?
  • Seema Misra: I didn’t invent them. This incident happened
  • Warwick Tatford: You know perfectly well, do you not, that in relation to some of those things you have read in articles that the prosecution have looked carefully at other complaints, have they not, and you have been disclosed material in relation to Calendar Square because that is an objective piece of material that gives a cause for concern about Horizon. You understand all that process, do you not?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: But you understand that the Post Office at the request of you and your solicitors have fully researched other articles and other suggestions of problems? You are aware of that, are you not?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah, that is right
  • Warwick Tatford: Thank you. So is it a case of you jumping on a bandwagon when you read something that might give you a hope and adding a few extra false limbs to your defence?
  • Seema Misra: No. If you recall, in my, I think it was Mr Dunks’ calls, I did make the calls on that, the losses as well and when Chesterfield transfer me to Horizon that…
  • Warwick Tatford: Yes, but you only made calls about the £6,000 loss according to Mr Dunks
  • Seema Misra: And when we go into the call there isn’t the call that I have been speaking to Chesterfield for two weeks and they ask me to ring Horizon help desk. There was a call, was it not? I think so
  • Warwick Tatford: I suggest there may have been some sort of disagreement with your staff and that prompted you to call the helpline, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that disagreement it does not go anywhere near to explaining why you were lacking £74,000?

The day before Seema Misra’s trial, was Monday the 1st of June 2009.

Seema Misra did not call the helpline “for two weeks”, like she claimed to the jury, this was another of her bare faced lies.

She first called the helpline on the 21st of February 2006 and told them she’d had problems for “the last couple of weeks”.

Javed and Nadia, her two former members of staff, had left the West Byfleet post office by February 2006.

Seema Misra did not report Javed or Nadia to either the post office or the police for any alleged thefts.

On the 8th of April 2006 Davinder Misra, Seema’s husband contacted Surrey police and reported Nadia for allegedly being an “illegal immigrant”.

On the 12th of April 2006 former employee Javed, reported Davinder Misra to Surrey police for harassment and stated that “Mr Misra had started spreading rumours around the community, telling others that Javed had stolen £2,000 from the till and was not paying it back”.

Hornswoggler Nick Wallis’s version of events differs from what Josephine Hamilton told the inquiry in her “statement of truth”.

Below are a few excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book The Great Post Office Scandal;

The day before her trial, a desperate Seema was searching on the internet.

One of her search queries seemed to return a lifeline. ‘I put in something like “Post Office court case help,” ’ she said, ‘and Jo came up!’ A local news website was carrying the story of Jo Hamilton’s conviction.

Seema called Davinder in excitement. They decided to try to contact Jo. Even though the Post Office had long gone, Jo was still working behind the retail counter at South Warnborough Village Stores.

South Warnborough Village Stores also just happened to be open on a Sunday, serving afternoon tea. Jo remembers taking Seema’s call. ‘She kept saying, “You’ve got to help me. You’ve got to help me.” She was crying and in a terrible state.’

The two women bonded on the phone. Jo told Seema about the journalist from Computer Weekly who had put together an investigation into Horizon.

Seema begged Jo for help.

Realising how little time was left, Jo ran over the road to Issy’s house and told her about Seema. Issy called up the Computer Weekly article on her computer. Jo wanted to know if there was anything that could be done. When Issy later told me about this dramatic moment, she laughed.

‘It was the day before the trial. Way too late. There was literally nothing I could do. Seema wasn’t even my client. I suggested to Jo that Seema should take a copy of the magazine to court, show it to the judge and ask for an adjournment.’

Jo ran back across the road, called Seema and explained what she had to do. The next day, Seema’s barrister approached the trial judge.

Excerpts by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021

Why does Nick Wallis’s version of events differ to Josephine Hamilton’s version of events?

Seema Misra has referenced Nick Wallis’s book in her statement to the inquiry (p.7 here).

Why would Seema Misra refer to Nick Wallis’s book in her statement, if she knew his version of events were wrong?

Why does Nick Wallis have Josephine Hamilton running “back across the road” calling Seema Misra, if Seema was already at her South Warnborough village shop?

The “day before” Seema Misra’s trial was Monday the 1st of June 2009.

If Nick Wallis’s version of events are true – that Seema Misra contacted Josephine Hamilton on Sunday the 31st of May 2009, then Seema Misra wilfully made a false statement during her trial evidence and committed perjury.

Biased Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Hornswoggler Nick Wallis & His ‘Great Post Office Scandal’ (Part 1)

Nick Wallis

Hack Nick Wallis & Innocence Fraud

In November 2020 Nick Wallis showed an interest in the ’innocence fraud concept’ and said he was ‘new to the idea of innocence fraud’ and that he was ‘fascinated by it’ and he was allegedly ‘trying to turn it into a podcast’.

Because by the end of 2020, early 2021, Nick Wallis was giving the impression he was planning to put together a podcast on innocence fraud, he was put into contact with Roberta Glass, of the Roberta Glass True Crime Report Podcast, based in New York City, NY.

Roberta Glass True Crime Report

Nadia’s episode on Innocence Fraud with Roberta Glass is well worth a listen;

Nick Wallis stated around this time;

Simon Hall was clearly a big jolt to the senses of a lot of people

I’m going to get back into pulling together what I’ve already recorded, but this is great context, thank you, Stephanie

Nick Wallis – January 2021

In a nutshell, innocence fraud is when a guilty, deceptive and manipulative person, like Joan Albert’s killer Simon Hall (Read more in the The Truth Behind Killer Simon Hall & His Enablers #InnocenceFraud Phenomenon Scam blog series), is enabled by other manipulative and deceptive people, including family members, friends, lawyers, academics, the criminal cases review commission, the court of appeal, MP’s, forensic scientists, hacks, writers, authors, journalists, documentarians, celebrities and others to lie on their behalf and craft false but convincing narratives in an attempt to give the impression the guilty convicted person is innocent.

The passage of time can help in cases of innocence fraud and requires hacks like Nick Wallis to, for example, fabricate leading narratives and mischaracterise the nature of the existing evidence which led to the conviction.

One of the key ingredients of innocence fraud is using the press to fabricate a leading narrative. 20 year veteran forensic scientist John M Collins Jr stated in 2014;

A common thread in many exonerations is the use of willing journalists to front-load a post-conviction investigation with the construction of a compelling innocence narrative.

Indeed, this can also be a problem in typical criminal investigations where the press jumps to conclusions about a suspect’s guilt. But in post-conviction litigation, the passage of time makes it far easier to sell the alternative story as being legitimate

Excerpt by John M Collins Jr from a 2014 article for the National District Attorney Association organisation headed, The Prosecutor with the byline, ’Innocence Fraud’ Demands Prosecutor Vigilance

And this is exactly what Nick Wallis has done with the Post office Horizon cases.

None of the 71 sub-postmistresses or sub-postmasters who, to date, have had their convictions overturned by the court of appeal, have yet to prove they were/are actually, factually innocent for the crimes which they were initially convicted of.

Nick Wallis does not seem to care about this fact and instead he is calling them all ’innocent’.

The court of appeal do not posses the power to declare these people innocent, which Nick Wallis is aware of, and as was made clear on the 30th January 2019 by the Supreme court in their judgement of R (on the application of Hallam) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) [2019] UKSC2.

It reads at paragraph 32;

It should be made clear that the CACD does not possess any power to make formal findings or declarations of innocence. Nothing in the Lord Chief Justice’s judgment in Adams suggested that it did. It is not the CACD’s role to determine whether the appellant is factually innocent.

CACD = Court of appeal criminal division

[2019] UKSC2

False, Misleading & Distorted Narratives

One of the cases Nick Wallis has written about is that of thief and fraudster Seema Misra, who pleaded guilty to six counts of false accounting and was found guilty of embezzling almost £75,000.00, over around two years and seven months, and spent around four months in prison for her crimes. Although the actual figure of Seema Misra’s embezzlement was estimated to be well over £100,000.00.

Links to the transcripts for each day of Seema Misra’s trial, which eventually began on Monday the 11th of October 2010, can be found here

Seema Misra

Seema Misra’s convictions were ‘overturned’ on a technicality by the court of appeal in 2021, and she was not found factually innocent, although this fact did not stop editors and newspapers like the Woking News & Mail (Which covers the West Byfleet area, where Seema Misra committed her crimes) for example, falsely claiming to their readers, ‘Seema is finally innocent’.

This false and misleading misrepresentation has been brought to the attention of Mark Miseldine, the editor of the newspaper in question along with the independent press standards authority (IPSO), and it will be interesting to see what, if anything, they choose to do about this propaganda.

The criminal cases review commission, who referred Seema Misra’s convictions to the court of appeal, can and do magic away main planks of a prosecutions case, as was evident in Joan Albert’s killer, Simon Hall’s case (Which can be read about here by clicking on each blue link to each part of the blog series).

The supposed ‘receipts & payments mismatch bug’ did not affect embezzler and fraudster Seema Misra’s post office branch or any branch before 2010, so why did the CCRC choose to refer her conviction to the court of appeal and how did the CCRC magic away the actual evidence? (See further Parts of this blog series for more on this – including Part 4 here)

The CCRC referred Simon Hall’s murder conviction to the court of appeal in October 2009, and it is still not known how or why the court of appeal were also seen to magic away another main and pertinent plank of the prosecutions case against Simon Hall, namely the Hall families concoctions.

If the criminal cases review commission and the court of appeal and all lawyers involved can use deceptive and fraudulent tactics like this with a murder conviction, just imagine what deceptive tactics they use with convictions of embezzlement of over £100,000:00 and false accounting, like in the Seema Misra case.

John Curtis, who was the case review manager from the criminal cases review commission and one of the people who helped enable Joan Albert’s killers fraud, made the bizarre claim in 2015, which was published by council magazine under the even more bizarre, false and misleading heading ‘Righting Wrongs’;

The Commission’s contribution to society is important

John Curtis

Enabling fraud is most certainly not important to society and John Curtis’s statement suggests not only had he not reflected on all the evidence in the case against Simon Hall, he had also not reflected on his failure to recognise the fraud when the case papers landed on his desk.

John Curtis – case review manager for the criminal cases review commission

And the fact that Seema Misra and none of the other sub-postmistress or postmasters were declared factually innocent do not appear to phase politicians on the business, energy and industrial strategy committee either.

For example, it was reported in a 17th February 2022 article, on the business, energy and industrial strategy committees parliament website that Bristol’s labour MP Darren Jones, who chairs the committee stated;

The Post Office-Horizon scandal is one of the largest miscarriages of justice in British history, subjecting sub-postmasters, postal workers and their families to the most appalling hardship 

Statement by Darren Jones
Labour MP Darren Jones

But a deeper look into the case and campaign of thief and fraudster and former sub-postmistress Seema Misra, has all the hallmarks of innocence fraud.

Millions Pledged to Save Post Offices

Nick Wallis has omitted a whole lot of facts regarding con artist Seema Misra and the case against her and he does not appear to have explored and addressed the monetary loses faced by sub-postmasters and postmistresses, reported on as far back as June 2000; because to do so would make the narrative he (And others) has chosen to tell even less believable than it already is.

In the year 2000 an article was published for the Guardian newspaper under the header, Millions pledged to revitalise post offices, stating;

Hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies to save the declining post office network have been agreed between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry.

The precise sum will be made public at the spending review announcement next month, covering 2002-5.

The industry secretary, Stephen Byers, yesterday claimed the money, coupled with new commercial opportunities, would help to prevent “avoidable closures” of rural post offices. But Mr Byers gave little detailed definition of this reassurance, prompting Conservative claims he had still not guaranteed the safety of Britain’s unprofitable post offices

The post office network, already losing 400 offices a year, is on the verge of a crisis engendered by the government decision to switch to automated credit transfer (ACT) for the payment of benefits. The Post Office will lose £400m by 2005 when ACT will have been completed. Currently, the payment of social security benefits accounts for 35% of its income.

But figures published yesterday show nearly half the post office network already generates less income than it costs. In total these offices lose around £35-40m, mainly in rural areas.

Excerpts by Patrick Wintour & Geoffrey Gibbs for the Guardian article headed Millions pledged to revitalise post offices 29th June 2000

Thieves & Fraudsters ‘Dave & Seema’ Misra

Seema and Davinder Misra

Seema and her husband Davinder (Dave) ran Homedecore.co.uk limited and Misra’s and sons limited before purchasing the West Byfleet shop and post office, located at 14, Station Approach, West Byfleet; around a minutes walk from the railway station (According to google maps), in 2005.

Google maps

West Byfleet is a small village located in Surrey. It is not known how many people lived in West Byfleet in 2005 but by 2011 (According to a census) the village was said to have a population of 5,626 people.

West Byfleet post office on Station Approach, West Byfleet, Surrey

It is also not known what due diligence, if any, Seema and Davinder Misra had carried out before purchasing the shop and post office and moving to West Byfleet but it was regularly being reported around this time that small post offices were dangling in the balance with some 6,500 rural post offices running at a loss. And by 2006 it was being reported that the post office network were making huge loses.

In October 2006 the Evening Star newspaper reported here that it was backing a protest which was to be held outside the Houses of Parliament to highlight concerns about the state of the post office network.

Postmasters hold umbrellas as they gather during a rally on October 18, 2006 in London, England. The National Federation of Subpostmasters are calling for urgent government action to safeguard the network of rural post offices at today’s rally. Photo by Daniel Berehulak

Warning to Struggling Post Offices

Protests, petitions and warnings were regularly being reported on throughout the UK by 2006, like Matt Weaver’s 2006 article for the Guardian here, which stated, ‘Britain’s postmasters are lobbying parliament in protest at the closure of thousands of post offices’ and ‘The Post Office has lost control of a number of revenue-generating services, including the TV licence contract. Last year, post office transactions fell by £168m’.

In 2006 the BBC reported;

The Department of Trade and Industry said that scale of cuts was “not on the table” but the current size of the network was “unsustainable”

The network is said to be making huge losses, and a current £150m-a-year subsidy for the rural network is due to be withdrawn in 2008.

Excerpt from BBC News article headed Thousands of post offices ‘to go’ 9th December 2006

And in April 2007 the East Anglian Daily Times reported, under the header, Warning over struggling postmasters;

STRUGGLING postmasters could be forced into desperate measures to keep their businesses afloat, it was warned last night. Beryl Keats, Suffolk secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, said that businessmen and women running struggling post offices – particularly in rural areas – could be tempted to dip their fingers into the till.

She raised her concerns after Kevin Howells, former sub-postmaster at Acton, near Sudbury, pleaded guilty to stealing more than £15,000 by using lottery takings to subsidise the adjacent shop.

Excerpts from a 25th April 2007 East Anglian Daily Times article

Link to Part 2 here