Post Office scandal

[Weston Super Saint]

55 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

With everything we know I can't see how they can continue to claim there wasn't a cover up. 

The prospect of time at His Majesty's pleasure?

[badgerx16]

Jamail Singh under questioning from Jason Beer KC

[Weston Super Saint]

Is it on TV today - I got to see some of it last week and if it wasn't so tragic it would be comedy gold with the amount of memory loss.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is it on TV today - I got to see some of it last week and if it wasn't so tragic it would be comedy gold with the amount of memory loss.

Live stream here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68946609

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

How does someone of Singh's questionable intellect ever get appointed to the role of Head of Criminal Litigation in any organisation? Unless he's actually very clever and is a superb actor....?

Lol.

He thought the postmasters would contact their local MP for "copulation". How did this half wit win any cases?

 

[trousers]

[badgerx16]

Former Post Office PR boss complained in emails that journalists investigating the scandal didn't show 'balance and impartiality', and that their reporting was 'appalling journalism'.

He also said in written evidence that he agreed with Paula Vennels is saying that using the word 'exceptions' rather than 'bugs' would convey the seriousness of the matter.

Edited May 14 by badgerx16

[trousers]

37 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Former Post Office PR boss complained in emails that journalists investigating the scandal didn't show 'balance and impartiality', and that their reporting was 'appalling journalism'.

He also said in written evidence that he agreed with Paula Vennels is saying that using the word 'exceptions' rather than 'bugs' would convey the seriousness of the matter.

Just logged on to post my thoughts on this fella.... more spin than a 'Dead or Alive' record...! They should've had Jason Beer interogating this bloke.... would've tron him to shreds. Blake is a bit too 'nice' for my liking...

Edited May 14 by trousers

[badgerx16]

Mark Davies, ( PR boss ), asked about his response to the Second Sight audit report, ( the company the PO sacked off and the report they tried to suppress ), by barrister Julian Blake;

 

"Did you think it was appropriate to lie in the way that you have in the press release?" Blake challenges.

"I don't think I've lied there," Davies says, his voice rising slightly.

If I'm guilty of anything there, it's of "being sloppy," he adds defensively. "I've never lied in my entire career"

 

( Mr Davies' nose just grew a little bit longer, methinks ).

Edited May 14 by badgerx16

[trousers]

It's the Post Office's Chief Information Officer's turn to testifiy today.... Jesus... are there any senior/executive managers out there that actually do anything over and above hiding behind delegation and/or 'lack of recall'...? If I'd have known 30 years ago how seemingly piss easy it is to be a senior/executive manager I'd have set my career goals much higher up the management ladder! Just bask in all the plaudits (and 6 or 7 figure bonuses) when things go well, but shirk responsibility and shrug sholuders, with hollow corporate-ese apologies, when things go tits up.

Edit: I'm watching this morning's hearing on catch-up and she (the CIO) started crying when reminded of a Subpostmaster who had to cash in her pension to pay for an £18,000 shortfall... maybe there is some compassion amongst ex-POL senior management afterall... 

Edited May 16 by trousers

[Weston Super Saint]

I wonder how honest, truthful and remorseful the ex-vicar will be when she begins being questioned tomorrow - if her previous appearances are an indicator, then 'not very' springs to mind!

 

[badgerx16]

Paula Vennels has arrived at the enquiry;

[Weston Super Saint]

And she is wearing her pearl earrings.

[rallyboy]

She started with a heartfelt apology and deep regrets about what had happened.

But one question in and she was suggesting her biggest sin was being too trusting.

Poor Paula.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Private Eye, amongst others have shown us exactly what she knew, when she knew it and the lengths she and they went to in order to cover up the persecution and prosecution of postmasters.

One snippet showed some canvassing done ahead of her accepting a CBE. Lots of fawning from others familiar to the enquiry. One person outlined that it was a disgrace, and she should not accept it, as one day she would be found out, and have to return it. That view point was dismissed as a minority one, by the fawners.

No chance she will own up to the extent of her involvement.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

 

No chance she will own up to the extent of her involvement.

Like the good, honest, god fearing Christian that she is?

[badgerx16]

45 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Poor Paula.

 

One thing she isn't is poor.

[badgerx16]

Vennels claims that for her first 5 years at the PO she had no knowledge that it carried out it's own prosecutions - Sir Wyn Williams clearly does not believe her.

[Gloucester Saint]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Vennels claims that for her first 5 years at the PO she had no knowledge that it carried out it's own prosecutions - Sir Wyn Williams clearly does not believe her.

Nor do I. She’s not the only one that era of leadership at the PO who have used that line though, it’s an obviously a standard line line they’ve agreed to push out. Chair just called it out - coverage of prosecutions in the press at the time pre-2012. Surely at her level you’d ask questions as your organisation was bringing the cases?

The email trail is exposing her though. Nice display of waterworks about the Griffiths suicide - many years too late for his loved ones. 

Had admitted misleading other PO colleagues and MPs - can’t see how she can’t be prosecuted - but allies in justice system will help her as the powerful don’t like to set a precedent. As we’ve seen already with Duckenfield and Hillsborough, Infected Blood Scandal and now this. 

Edited May 22 by Gloucester Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

On 14/05/2024 at 11:55, badgerx16 said:

Mark Davies, ( PR boss ), asked about his response to the Second Sight audit report, ( the company the PO sacked off and the report they tried to suppress ), by barrister Julian Blake;

 

"Did you think it was appropriate to lie in the way that you have in the press release?" Blake challenges.

"I don't think I've lied there," Davies says, his voice rising slightly.

If I'm guilty of anything there, it's of "being sloppy," he adds defensively. "I've never lied in my entire career"

 

( Mr Davies' nose just grew a little bit longer, methinks ).

“And I’m not lying now”

[badgerx16]

Listening to Vennels I think Elton John was wrong. 'sorry' is most certainly not the hardest word.

But, as our daughter used to say when she was little, 'Sorry doesn't make it better'.

[Weston Super Saint]

She sounds so conflicted.  On one side, her nature (religious beliefs?) seems to want to tell the truth, but the CEO in her is resisting that temptation as she knows she'll be in prison!

 

[badgerx16]

Sir Wyn Williams skewers her at the end of the day;

''For a final question, the inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams asks Paula Vennells for clarification about the parliamentary select committee in 2015.

He asks whether the briefing she had been given before the hearing advised to be "very precise, very circumspect, and very guarded" about what she said.

"I would. I'm not sure I would have noticed that on the morning of the day," Vennells replies.

But that was the effect that was trying to be created by those who made that document, says Sir Wyn.

"It could have been, yes," Vennells says.

"Why?" the inquiry chair asks''

 

 

 

Vennels starts crying again.

Edited May 22 by badgerx16

[Holmes_and_Watson]

50 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

She sounds so conflicted.  On one side, her nature (religious beliefs?) seems to want to tell the truth, but the CEO in her is resisting that temptation as she knows she'll be in prison!

 

Like the others, the conflict is how to answer the question without incriminating themselves. They have all been well briefed, not just for this inquiry, but across the years of holding the line against scrutiny.

Had any one of them had a genuine conflict regarding truth, the victims wouldn't be where they are today. And, if any of them had genuine conflicts, being in careers where cover ups are operationally normal practice would be untenable.

She can profess to have any beliefs she likes. But they've had no bearing on any of her actions. Like the others, guilt is just a show to put on when they've been forced to appear in public.

[whelk]

10 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Like the good, honest, god fearing Christian that she is?

TBF she probably prayed for a news story to dominate and take the focus off the enquiry

[Turkish]

interesting listening to a couple of former postmasters on GMB this morning, both seem to think Paula Vennells has been thrown under the bus a bit and scapegoated whilst others are getting an easier ride. Get that she was CEO and it was on her watch but seems like there was a lot of cover up beneath her

[buctootim]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

interesting listening to a couple of former postmasters on GMB this morning, both seem to think Paula Vennells has been thrown under the bus a bit and scapegoated whilst others are getting an easier ride. Get that she was CEO and it was on her watch but seems like there was a lot of cover up beneath her

Could well be true. In a big organisation the CEO doesn't have day to day contact with operations and really only knows what they're told by their Directors and Heads, particularly on a specialist issue like software functioning and forensic accountancy . 

Edited Thursday at 07:47 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Could well be true. In a big organisation the CEO doesn't have day to day contact with operations and really only knows what they're told by their Directors and Heads, particularly on a specialist issue like software functioning and forensic accountancy . 

However, it is clear she knew about the issues with Horizon before she gave evidence to the Select Committee, yet told the SC there were none. She knew the prosecutions were taking place, even after the first High Court rulings that convictions were unsafe. She may not have known/understood the technical detail, but she was not ignorant of the situation, and could easily have done something to stop it. She chose to protect the brand and image of the PO over the livelihoods and families of her staff, knowing the evidence against them was flawed.

Do you believe her claim that it was over 5 years into her employment as a senior manager at the PO that she found out there was an investigation and prosecution department, employing over 100 staff ?

Edited Thursday at 09:06 by badgerx16

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

However, it is clear she knew about the issues with Horizon before she gave evidence to the Select Committee, yet told the SC there were none. She knew the prosecutions were taking place, even after the first High Court rulings that convictions were unsafe. She may not have known/understood the technical detail, but she was not ignorant of the situation, and could easily have done something to stop it. She chose to protect the brand and image of the PO over the livelihoods and families of her staff, knowing the evidence against them was flawed.

Do you believe her claim that it was over 5 years into her employment as a senior manager at the PO that she found out there was an investigation and prosecution department, employing over 100 staff ?

well it seems like on todays evidence she did know. She was sent an email from a PR consultant saying that if they publicly looked into historical cases it would be front page news and the impact would be ballistic, to which she replied that she would accept that person steer. She also sent an email saying that in the mediation scheme she hoped to minimise compensation. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

well it seems like on todays evidence she did know. She was sent an email from a PR consultant saying that if they publicly looked into historical cases it would be front page news and the impact would be ballistic, to which she replied that she would accept that person steer. She also sent an email saying that in the mediation scheme she hoped to minimise compensation. 

Today some smoking guns really exposed her. The email you refer to on the mediation scheme, and the response to Mark Davies’s advice, their Head of Media, which confirmed the cover-up. The one which appalled me the most though - and this wasn’t just Vennells and the enquiry should have kept digging to get to the bottom of it - was the seeming obstruction of Susan Crichton’s paper on Horizon’s legal risks for PO Board in 2013. Vennells said she didn’t present/mis-represent the paper as an agenda item and had expected Crichton to appear later in the meeting. 

She didn’t and it appears was stood down by the board chair, so they are under pressure to come clean and the chair and other board members could also be in big trouble if it’s proven they had sufficient awareness of the cover-up. Vennells was part of it but even today, she wouldn’t drop any of her former executive colleagues in it - they are tight knit in their standard lines and obscuration on key items. Purely about losing face - and to a certain extent, money to put right the horrific wrongs. Suited Fujitsu as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl44j0xgeljo

Edited Thursday at 18:55 by Gloucester Saint

[rooney]

She will also be questioned by some of the postmasters own barristers today towards the end of the days proceedings. The bald one does not pull any punches either.

[Weston Super Saint]

32 minutes ago, rooney said:

She will also be questioned by some of the postmasters own barristers today towards the end of the days proceedings. The bald one does not pull any punches either.

Yep, today should be a little more rowdy!

Jason Beer is methodical and picks away at all the loose strands, I think it might be one of the postmaster's barristers that is more enigmatic and asks far more direct (and uncomfortable) questions.  I think it's Emma Price who is very good at laying simple but very effective 'traps' using the witnesses own evidence to catch them out.

Edited Friday at 07:08 by Weston Super Saint

[Fan The Flames]

It's symbolic that PV is being questioned on the same day that parliament had to enact the unprecedented, and possibly never to be repeated, mass exoneration of wrongly convicted SPM. 

I don't buy into the idea that she is an escape goat, it was in her gift on numerous occasions to act completely differently but she choose to always put the PO first. No doubt she will continue to do that again today.

She sucked good and hard on the public sector teat for too long.

[The Kraken]

26 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

It's symbolic that PV is being questioned on the same day that parliament had to enact the unprecedented, and possibly never to be repeated, mass exoneration of wrongly convicted SPM. 

I don't buy into the idea that she is an escape goat, it was in her gift on numerous occasions to act completely differently but she choose to always put the PO first. No doubt she will continue to do that again today.

She sucked good and hard on the public sector teat for too long.

🤣

[badgerx16]

Counsel for the SPMs accuses Vennels of inventing some of the undocumented corridor meeting with her legal team, says her account is 'la la land', and she is 'living in a cloud of denial'.

Edited Friday at 09:53 by badgerx16

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

🤣

[hypochondriac]

On 23/05/2024 at 08:40, Turkish said:

interesting listening to a couple of former postmasters on GMB this morning, both seem to think Paula Vennells has been thrown under the bus a bit and scapegoated whilst others are getting an easier ride. Get that she was CEO and it was on her watch but seems like there was a lot of cover up beneath her

I have to say I was a bit uneasy watching her grilling. I absolutely understand she has some culpability but publically flogging someone in public doesn't actually resolve anything. Like you say, it's more than one person involved here and it's gone a bit burn the witch on the back of the dranatisation which painted her as almost solely responsible. 

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, The Kraken said:

🤣

🤣 predicted text or lack of coffee or a bit of a thicko.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

🤣 predicted text or lack of coffee or a bit of a thicko.

Dave Gorman would be proud.

[rallyboy]

In this nanny state I think we all need an escape goat.

Paula currently getting battered around the room like a Chipperfields chimp.

One for the kids. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I have to say I was a bit uneasy watching her grilling. I absolutely understand she has some culpability but publically flogging someone in public doesn't actually resolve anything. Like you say, it's more than one person involved here and it's gone a bit burn the witch on the back of the dranatisation which painted her as almost solely responsible. 

Although as CEO the buck stops with her.

Yes, other people are culpable of hiding shit from her, but that doesn't excuse her from finding out what was going on, asking questions and not blindly accepting the answers.

I bet those working for her couldn't believe their luck!  "Paula's asking some tricky questions again, let's fob her off with some more bollocks and she'll wind her neck in.  Your expense account or mine for lunch today - although goat is off the menu as I hear the little fucker has escaped. Again".

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Although as CEO the buck stops with her.

Yes, other people are culpable of hiding shit from her, but that doesn't excuse her from finding out what was going on, asking questions and not blindly accepting the answers.

I bet those working for her couldn't believe their luck!  "Paula's asking some tricky questions again, let's fob her off with some more bollocks and she'll wind her neck in.  Your expense account or mine for lunch today - although goat is off the menu as I hear the little fucker has escaped. Again".

She did say this morning that within the organisation she was known for asking probing questions, before naming those she felt had not been honest with her.

[Weston Super Saint]

40 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

She did say this morning that within the organisation she was known for asking probing questions, before naming those she felt had not been honest with her.

She also said there were no bugs with Horizon.  For years!

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Although as CEO the buck stops with her.

Yes, other people are culpable of hiding shit from her, but that doesn't excuse her from finding out what was going on, asking questions and not blindly accepting the answers.

I bet those working for her couldn't believe their luck!  "Paula's asking some tricky questions again, let's fob her off with some more bollocks and she'll wind her neck in.  Your expense account or mine for lunch today - although goat is off the menu as I hear the little fucker has escaped. Again".

I completely agree. She is culpable and should be prosecuted if necessary. I just think that sort of thing woukd be better served at a trial. American Senate hearings do it all the time where they have senators firing stuff at people to try to generate viral moments. What's happened is awful, I'm just not a big fan of public dressing downs regardless of the obvious responsibility she holds and obviously that isn't trying to minimise the terrible ordeal that everyone else has gone through. People are entitled to disagree. 

Edited Friday at 12:37 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

With the constant coverage and reporting of the inquiry, we might be reaching the point where any trials won't be able to happen.  Will there be anyone left that can be impartial?

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

With the constant coverage and reporting of the inquiry, we might be reaching the point where any trials won't be able to happen.  Will there be anyone left that can be impartial?

Which is another reason why this should be done at trial. 

[Fan The Flames]

There's an enquiry because things got way out of hand. That's the POs and Vennells fault, they brought the discomfort on themselves.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

There's an enquiry because things got way out of hand. That's the POs and Vennells fault, they brought the discomfort on themselves.

There are certain things the enquiry are not covering or querying as they either fall foul of Parliamentary Privilege, ( ie things said or omitted at, or lying to, the Select Committee, which should be picked up by the Committee after the enquiry report is published and if necessary referred on for legal sanction ), or run the risk of self incrimination, ( once the report is published it is likely that parts will be picked up by the Police ).

Notwithstanding, Gareth Jenkins is almost certainly looking at prosecution for perjury, as it seems clear his evidence in the trials of SPMs was untruthful. There may also be action taken against PO legal officers who knowingly withheld evidence that might have been useful to the defence in Court.

( Some of the above is my interpretation and educated guesswork ).

 

It is interesting that one of the former senior IT staff at the PO seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth, the enquiry has been unable to detect any trace of him - Sir Wyn Williams even asked Paula Vennels if she had had any contact with the missing man since 2016. She said she had not.

 

Edited Friday at 17:09 by badgerx16