Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

961 replies

nauticant · 24/05/2024 09:29

A continuation of the discussion started by@Sausagenbaconhere:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5080262-to-enjoy-hearing-paula-vennels-being-taken-apart

Paula Vennells' 3 days of evidence ends today but there are more hearings coming up and we can discuss those too.

When the hearings are going on, live-streaming can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/featured

All of the previous hearings can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/videos

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Peregrina · 06/06/2024 11:44

re the election!

Wasn't that the time of Fixed Parliaments? So talk of an election is hogwash.

Yes, just looked it up and the Act was passed in 2011.

We subsequently found that there were ways round the Act, but that didn't really come into play until after the 2015 election. And she is married to a long time politician.

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:42

If Deloitte saw that an unsteerable ship was heading into iceberg-infested waters and decided to head off in the opposite direction, was there anyone on the board or in the executive of Post Office thinking similarly?

OP posts:
DanielGault · 06/06/2024 11:40

😮😮😮 re the election!

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:37

The restrictions imposed on the Post Office about what they could do with the Deloitte report are eye-catching. Clearly Deloitte foresaw a risk of ending up as the fall guys, took steps to prevent that, and engineered things to extract themselves from what they foresaw as a situation likely to go badly South.

OP posts:
Lunde · 06/06/2024 11:34

nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:26

This bit is interesting. It's JB pointing out that although she's using the Linklaters advice as a shield, that shield has holes in it because Linklaters suggested substantive work and Post Office had Deloitte put up a sham review of Horizon.

Yeah - he really manages very quietly to lead her into stating a position that is contradictory to what she's previously stated.

.... when she starts floundering like a flappy fish - you know JB has got her

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:26

This bit is interesting. It's JB pointing out that although she's using the Linklaters advice as a shield, that shield has holes in it because Linklaters suggested substantive work and Post Office had Deloitte put up a sham review of Horizon.

OP posts:
Lunde · 06/06/2024 11:24

Is she saying that she actually has no memories of the events that she is testifying about - but has reconstructed them 6months ago after seeing the documents?

PerkingFaintly · 06/06/2024 11:18

nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:14

It's also the passive-aggressive "more in sorrow than in anger" delivery. The "I know you can't but help be a disappointment".

Yes, absolutely this.

Lunde · 06/06/2024 11:18

She got a bit snappy yesterday afternoon. So it will be interesting to see how she reacts later when she is pushed by some of the more abrasive barristers.

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:14

It's also the passive-aggressive "more in sorrow than in anger" delivery. The "I know you can't but help be a disappointment".

OP posts:
PerkingFaintly · 06/06/2024 11:10

Seems a bit of repeated refrain:

Counsel: Here's a really damning report or advice, in black and white.
PO weasel: That report contained many positive things. The author verbally communicated to us a positive feel.

DanielGault · 06/06/2024 11:09

Sceptic1234 · 06/06/2024 11:04

She also has a tendency to put on a very "civil service / head mistress" voice and say things like "if you scroll back you can see the background to this...." and then waffle about something else as a way of avoiding questions.

She does, she comes across as quite exasperated at times. Something the rest of them were also suffering from when they weren't snivelling.

Sceptic1234 · 06/06/2024 11:04

She also has a tendency to put on a very "civil service / head mistress" voice and say things like "if you scroll back you can see the background to this...." and then waffle about something else as a way of avoiding questions.

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 11:02

AP is now being very disappointed with the Man from Deloitte (Gareth James). Another one who let her down.

A life of continual disappointments.

OP posts:
DanielGault · 06/06/2024 11:00

I've only been dipping in and out, but I really can't get over just how brazen they are!

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 10:55

Has anyone else noticed that when AP is properly on the hook, she'll often retreat behind a particular form of words:

"I'm sorry, I don't think I can be up much more help here I'm afraid."

ie: if I answer that honestly I'll reveal too much and if I lie I'll be called a liar.

OP posts:
Peregrina · 06/06/2024 10:52

AP has perked up

I thought it remarkable how her memory had recovered.

Lunde · 06/06/2024 10:51

AP really helped out personally by PV not performing well at PO and not getting on well with the Minister - with government feeling that PV did not have a grip on the detail and was unable to deal with staff that "challenged" her

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 10:48

AP has perked up from that last set of questions and looks to be feeling herself to be on firmer ground, especially now she's talking about Linklaters advice saying all was well.

OP posts:
Username056 · 06/06/2024 10:45

I’m steeling myself to start watching later today when I have some time free

Quebeccles · 06/06/2024 10:44

AP not just throwing PV under the bus, but getting in the driver's seat, putting it into gear and jamming her foot down 🫣

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 10:36

AP is really liking this, seeing a possible alignment of her interests with thinking of the Inquiry, to put the majority of the blame onto Vennells.

She is delighted that documents showing internal discussions in ShEx have helped in this regard and meant that AP didn't even need to stick the knife in first.

For whatever reason(s) it was done, the strategy of keeping the board in the dark has saved much of AP's skin.

OP posts:
Quirkyme · 06/06/2024 10:30

nauticant · 06/06/2024 10:29

AP, being a good person, is now gently, and with care, easing Vennells into a position where she's under the bus. AP is clearly doing this with great reluctance and regret.

Exactly, feigned reluctance and regret.

I hate it when someone wants to express their reservations on someone but they don't spit it out, as if pretending to hesitate and be thoughtful about it will make it any better.

Spit it out lady

Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 10:29

AP, being a good person, is now gently, and with care, easing Vennells into a position where she's under the bus. AP is clearly doing this with great reluctance and regret.

OP posts:
Original poster
nauticant · 06/06/2024 10:25

Ooh, the government recognised in 2014 that Vennells should get the boot and discussed getting rid of her. (In relation to financial performance and reform of Post Office and that she had problems with being challenged.)

Someone called Susan Barton is now officially AP's BFF. Now that AP has found herself to be disappointed in Vennells.

OP posts: