Paula Vennels being questioned at the Post Office Inquiry, followed by others - thread 2

He was totally the smiling assassin!

She thought she had got through the hard bits ... but the morning's aggressive questioners were just the warm up act. He was softly spoken, gentle and she started to relax and think about her weekend ... then wham - he sprung the trap.

He got her to agree that she claimed to "not recall" certain things (that he had detailed evidence of). Altering the prospectus to remove details of business threats might be a serious crime - yet she was proud of it and bragged about it in her achievements of the year.

Then there is her humblebrag that she was always kind and calm in her communications - then the trap was set for the e-mails where she was terse/rude to a more junior employee but grovelling when she accidently sent it to a more senior one, then she sent that e.mail slagging off a convicted postmistress

Thank you so much to all the posters on this thread. It has been great to share opinions and info while watching live. I was outraged and not bored by all the answers given by Vennells (see what I did there?).
This has helped set the scandal in context and I am now much better informed.

A creepy crawly sort of person, obsequious in the presence of those higher up the echelons, but totally oppressive when dealing with those she considers beneath her, and willing to throw any colleagues under the bus, because she’s too cowardly to admit her own part in this and desperate to hang onto her good girl facade.

If she is as devout as she likes to portray herself as, she should reacquaint herself with Matthew, Chapter 6, verse 5.

The sort of person who is all sweetness and light to the people she thinks are worth the effort - but absolutely vicious to minions when there are no witnesses.

Bet anybody unfortunate enough to have her as a manager throughout her climbing of the greasy pole has got some stories to tell of how she was when nobody else was around to see her show her true self.

Spot on

Vennels memory appears to be almost as shit as Sturgeons, which is saying something.

Edward Henry said:

There were so many forks in the road, but you always took the wrong path didn't you?

Ouch!

I agree that Mr Beer is incomparable but Mr Moloney comes a very close second. He was excellent today in demonstrating that PV’s much-vaunted saintliness was so much hogwash. No wonder there was audible protest in the tribunal. It must have been sickening for those present to hear her vile email read out.

@Mulloffuckintyre It seems wild doesn't it. The answer is actually in the clause of the contract that was focused on at one point today. It said that postmasters were directly accountable for any losses incurred through their failure to follow correct security protocol. I guess I can imagine situations where someone is reckless in some way that leads to a robbery where that would make sense. For example if you manage a branch of Tesco and you don't bother locking up, and it gets robbed, yes, you didn't yourself rob it, but you are highly responsible for what happened due to your dereliction of duty. What happened here feels much less clear and it is further proof of the Post Office's ruthlessly black and white approach to its heartless treatment of postmasters.

If it happened like the itv drama, the postie turned up to collect parcel bags and was taking one out to his van and coming back for another so the door hasn't shut 100 percent and locked behind him as he was (as he usually had been) due to be back in all of a minute. Unfortunately at that same time the armed robbers burst in and got in to the area that should have been secure and locked after damaging Lees hand when he tried to stop them getting in.

I also think it is likely.

The only even half comparable thing I can think of is the France Telecom trial which did lead to (short) prison sentences.
I think this is an order of magnitude worse, and believe several people both in the post office and Fujitsu need prison sentences, partially as a deterrent to other employers.

It truly is shameful what they did and continue to do. I would be shocked to the core to think any friend or relative of mine could behave with so little integrity whilst thinking anything good of themselves.

They were cavalier about sending people to prison. And yet, their expectations as to how they themselves should be treated by the law show them to be rank hypocrites- on top of all their other failings.

Wild idea I know, but Paula Vennels is coming over so utterly clueless that I'm starting to wonder if she might just be a scapegoat for much bigger people in the organisation?

Thanks to all who clarified for me! I see the point now about how he wanted to get her to say she was only ever a nice person and then come in later with her horrid triumphalist email (although I think you can be cross in emails without that making you the sort of person who crows triumphantly about others' misfortunes).

I'd have much more respect for her if she had just said, I sounded cross because I am cross. This is unacceptable and I am angry about it and it needs to be actions. (Personally I think it's fine to be cross in emails. God knows I've got enough cross emails from CEOs! And it made us sit up and sort our shit out. Not about scandalous coverups I hasten to add.)

To me what that corrective comment about "I don't mean to sound cross" revealed is that she is someone who was overly concerned about appearing - APPEARING - nothing but sweetness and moral light.

"I don't think I ever sent emails in the way that you read it." He set the trap beautifully and she fell right in! These guys are impressive AF!

Paula Venom, I reckon.

I agree. I am not religious bu was educated in a schools that were very strongly associated with the church. Most people with true religious convictions are absolutely fine. That's not really what I'm talking about here.

To be honest, I've met too many Paula Vennels in my career. Now retired but watching the enquiry has helped me understand the culture I worked in.

Great analysis. I'm just rewatching the Moloney questioning. He really was a genius at how he started with 'just three questions', his delivery quiet and non-threatening, lulling her into a false sense of security, then in the end completely nailing her. The man's a viper! 👊

I think the point he was trying to show is that she was an angry, spiteful and vindictive woman.

The wholesome, kind, thoughtful and jolly Paula Vennels who was a committed and upstanding member church and society was just a front.

I was struck by the way she never missed the chance to praise herself and her values. Even when presented with that ghastly email, she still maintained that it was a "mistake" and didn't align with her true values. It was as if someone else had written it.

As someone else said, religious people often have a lot vested in the fact that they are "good".

I can imagine people who dealt with her at public events may well find her approachable, engaging and interested. That woman is just an act.

The people who work with her day to day will quickly start to see the real Paula Vennels. That is the woman who wrote those horrible emails, who refuses to accept responsibility for her actions, who blames other people for their failings and, I suspect, has an absolutely foul temper. The only failings that she can see in herself is that she is "too kind", "too understanding", "too patient".

laclochette · Today 16:29
One thing I'm confused about as a line of questioning was when the tone of one of PV's emails, accidentally misdirected, was identified as being "cross". Why was that a bad thing?

Yeah, that was a really weird "correction" by Vennells - and such an insight!

I speak as someone who embarrassingly frequently sends follow-ups saying, "Sorry, I've just re-read my last email to you. That was unduly blunt, and I do apologise."

I don't wag my finger at people for potentially misunderstanding tone – it's not that they misunderstood my tone, it's that my tone was Wrong. I wrote it, I own the mistake. Even if they hadn't minded the tone.

I also don't pick and choose who I apologise to! Vennells only apologised for tone because the Wrong Person got the email.

She's clearly very keen to protect her priestly Paula persona in front of certain people. Her inner team of underlings get to see what's behind the mask.

[ETA post I was replying to]

Well, if this inquiry is anything to go by, the Thirlwell Inquiry will be compelling viewing, can't wait to see those merry-go-round NHS career managers and their mates being eviscerated. It is just a shame people needed to die for this cabal of people to be brought to account.

One thing I'm confused about as a line of questioning was when the tone of one of PV's emails, accidentally misdirected, was identified as being "cross". Why was that a bad thing?

It sounds like she had good reason to be cross about delays, and IMO she could have done with taking a much harder tone, and being much less worried about being seen to be cross, throughout her tenure! She seems to always have been worried about being pleasant and not rocking the boat. Sometimes as a boss it's ok to be cross, if an error has been made, and to express that irritation to underline the severity of the situation!