I am often asked if I miss being on television. The answer is always the same: no, but I do miss seeing the friends I worked with.

I don’t miss the pressure of getting a live news programme on air every night and I certainly won’t miss the scrutiny and criticism that comes with covering an election campaign!

Don’t get me wrong; I will always be grateful that I was lucky enough to fulfil a childhood dream to work in broadcasting. So I look back on my time in TV with great fondness and deep gratitude.

But! Yes, there’s always a ‘but’, I do sometimes miss being able to hold decision makers to account.

One of the greatest privileges of being a journalist is having access to those who influence the lives of millions of people, whether it’s a politician or the boss of a big company.

There have been a few stories recently that have angered me so much that I wished I had still been in that privileged position to hold someone to account.

The first is the Post Office scandal. I am ashamed to say that during my last few years on Spotlight I didn’t fully appreciate the scale of this disgraceful injustice.

Then along came the ITV drama at the start of this year. It highlighted to millions of viewers the human cost of this scandal. It had me in tears of anger and frustration.

I have since watched much of the subsequent parliamentary hearings and the on-going Post Office Inquiry in disbelief.

It is one of the worst examples of people at the top of an organisation putting the reputation of that organisation above all else, particularly the welfare of the people who work for it.

If I were still in a position to hold people to account I would be asking one simple question: why?

Why was the Post Office brand so much more important than the people who delivered its services? Why did the Post Office continue defending the indefensible?

Although the Inquiry will undoubtedly undercover many of the facts, I am not sure we will ever fully understand why the Post Office behaved the way it did. It is beyond comprehension.

The way these big companies are structured also means that no one person ever seems accountable. Everybody blames everyone else; they hide behind the corporate entity, even though they were happy to take millions of pounds in pay for the responsibility of supposedly being in charge.

I have lost track of the number of times I have heard former Post Office executives tell the Inquiry that they “couldn’t recall” or “don’t remember”. It beggars belief.

The other story that left me hankering after the opportunity to ask some serious questions was the recent drinking water contamination in South Devon.

I had many clashes with South West Water during my time on television and radio. Early on in my career the debate was often around the cost of the ‘Clean Sweep’ project. Remember that?

We were paying the highest bills in the country for years, but South West Water kept telling us it was an investment in the future. It was to pay to upgrade treatment works and clean up our seas.

I would often ask executives why the poor old customers were paying such high bills when, as a privatised company they had shareholders who were receiving dividends and they were also able to go out and borrow money on the markets.

The reply was always the same: shareholders needed rewarding so that they would continue to invest, otherwise bills would be even higher.

Fast-forward to 2024 and water companies across the country are pleading poverty. They claim that the amount of sewage going into our seas and rivers is because they haven’t had enough money to invest in the infrastructure.

Now the water companies, including South West Water, are going cap in hand to the regulator asking for a big rise in our bills over the next five years to pay for the necessary improvements.

Once again I find myself asking: Why? Where has all the money from our high bills gone? Down the drain presumably.

The recent water contamination in Devon brought about the usual apologies for letting customers down. I heard South West Water’s Chief Customer and Digital Officer being interviewed on BBC Radio Four.

The answer to almost every question started with an apology, so much so that it began to sound insincere. Perhaps that is why she is described as a Digital Officer maybe she is Artificial Intelligence.

My own experience of interviewing executives was usually frustrating. They would often use corporate jargon and would be coached in how to say a lot while at the same time actually saying nothing at all.

Although I don’t get to ask the questions anymore, there are some fantastic journalists who are still shining a light on some of these issues, people such as Nick Wallis who has done so much to highlight the shocking Post Office scandal.

Long may they continue holding to account the decision makers; it is more vital than ever.

Bye for now.