Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
minou123 · 05/06/2024 15:56

I'm.not sure she has been prepped for this.

With PV it was really obvious her lawyers did practice sessions and told her how to answer the questions and she knew all the documents

Whereas AP seems to be flying by the seat of her pants. She was provided all these documents, had them for a while and should know she will be asked about them
Yet she's acting like this is the first time she's read them.
Either she did no.practice/or did not seek advice or whoever did the practice did a terrible job.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 15:55

Looks like it was hidden in August 2013 when 'everyone was in Tuscany'. Ooof.

nauticant · 05/06/2024 15:51

Another critical document, this time from Bond Dickinson, about insurance risks. Prepared for the purpose of it going to the board but AP is saying that for unknown reasons, this document or its contents never made it to the board.

This is all remarkably fishy.

OP posts:
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 15:41

The CEO Vennells seems very comfortable overriding her Chair's supposed wishes, in emails.

Sceptic1234 · 05/06/2024 15:38

Then goes on to talk about how many difficult things she dealt with as a civil servant. Yet more self aggrandizing....

nauticant · 05/06/2024 15:36

JB: Why didn't 3 successive general counsel not disclose the critical Clarke and other legal advice to the board?

AP has no idea why they didn't.

This to me is extraordinary. It would be mad not to disclose but there's no evidence it was. My suspicion is that everyone knew to discuss these things verbally with no record being kept.

OP posts:
Peregrina · 05/06/2024 15:31

They are back after the break.

I wonder if she realises what she has admitted by saying it's a cock up rather than a conspiracy. She is therefore admitting that there has been a cover up.

nauticant · 05/06/2024 15:25

Break till 15.25.

OP posts:
Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 15:24

Oh wait is it over or on a break

nauticant · 05/06/2024 15:24

JB at the end pulled some strands together: was it that the executive level, Vennells, Crichton etc, hid critical information from the board because the board would have made it known and blown open the whole mess, but if it could be kept quiet this would maintain the reputation of the Post Office brand?

OP posts:
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 15:22

The bonuses give motive though for a cover-up. The CEO Paula Vennells's bonuses were the tip of the ice-berg really - a whole heap of other Execs were on bonuses too, so in theory they had motive to underplay and try and influence the reports & info going to the Chair and the other Non-Executive Directors (NEDs).

Sceptic1234 · 05/06/2024 15:13

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 15:11

Oh god she's now pushing toward 'cock-up not conspiracy' explanation

I agree with her. Cock up fueled by large salaries and bonuses paid to self serving incompetants like her.

If these people were intelligent enough to conspire, then they would probably have been able to run the business.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 15:11

Oh god she's now pushing toward 'cock-up not conspiracy' explanation

Peregrina · 05/06/2024 15:08

As I see it, he has more or less called her a liar.

minou123 · 05/06/2024 15:07

Oh and, can't wait for the core participants lawyers tomorrow.

Beer is great, but the other lawyers certainly don't mince their words.

minou123 · 05/06/2024 15:06

I'm 4 hours behind, but these are my thoughts so far

▪︎ she's a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" person
▪︎ she starts on one path, gets evidence that didn't happen, then contradicts herself
▪︎ is treating this Inquiry like its a bit of a nuisance and small inconvenience to her

Sceptic1234 · 05/06/2024 15:05

Long, rambling self serving account of what "marking" means......

nauticant · 05/06/2024 15:01

Now we're on to AP's issue with Crichton and it coming down to Crichton not having fixed the Second Sight review to get the right answer for Post Office.

That's in AP's own words but she's flatly denying the words she wrote.

OP posts:
Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 14:59

So now he's talking to her about her criticisms of Susan, I reckon he's gonna thrown in the chair again

Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 14:59

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:57

Why didn't she query the Minutes, then, as the Chair, if the omission was so 'stupid'? She would have signed them off.

Exactly. She thinks she's doing something convincing with her choice of words.

She's doing that to distance herself as if she's not to blame

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:57

Why didn't she query the Minutes, then, as the Chair, if the omission was so 'stupid'? She would have signed them off.

Lunde · 05/06/2024 14:57

AP getting a bit rattled and snappy now.

nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:56

JB,: "Do you think the [Crichton's] paper got entirely overlooked?"

AP strongly denied this but all evidence points to this having happened. All that happened was Vennells cherry-picked a few bits and binned the rest thus hiding it from the board.

OP posts:
Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 14:56

Why aren't they giving Beer Page 6, he's asked 3 times now 🤣

Sceptic1234 · 05/06/2024 14:48

These people cannot miss a chance to praise themselves. "It wasn't my style.... etc. Etc. Etc".

Pure masturbation .... nothing else.

Swipe left for the next trending thread