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
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:47

Is she being deliberately obtuse?

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:46

AP is completely stuck here. She took the position that the Second Sight report was positive for Post Office and also took the position that the report meant that it exposed Post Office to actions from subpostmasters for wrongful convictions. These are contradictory and she cannot reconcile them.

OP posts:
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:46

'I think I would have thought ...'

Aye, right, Alice.

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:41

I thought it had already been established during Vennells' evidence that she didn't present Crichton's briefing paper to the board, but only bits and pieces of it. I wish that could be explored here.

OP posts:
Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 14:39

Beer is talking about that chair again! 🤣🤣🤣

Love it

Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 14:36

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:35

AP is now sniffing a lot.

Yeah what's going on

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:35

AP is now sniffing a lot.

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:35

Massive self-serving explanation from AP about why Susan Crichton had to sit on the Chair of Naughtiness outside the meeting while the board tore her to shreds in the meeting:
JB: "Why isn't that reflected in the minutes [of the board]?"
AP: [pause] "I don't know."

OP posts:
Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:28

We're back to the same depressing facts that on 16 July 2013 Susan Crichton was excluded from the board meeting meaning the board were to some extent kept in the dark about the seriousness of the briefing Crichton had planned to present.

OP posts:
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 14:15

This is staggering.

(July 2013.)

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:14

We're back to a thread favourite, the board meeting where Susan Crichton was excluded and made to sit outside on the Chair of Naughtiness.

OP posts:
Quirkyme · 05/06/2024 14:13

She's a fucking mess

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 14:10

AP saying it was wrong to claim that the board wanted to sack Second Sight. Contradicting a meeting where others had said this to external lawyers. This is a surprising argument from her when, ultimately, Second Sight were indeed sacked because the board wanted this.

OP posts:
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 13:16

Wow. The Chair pretty much saying that she was uncritically accepting of statements made to her (frequently verbally) by senior people in the Post office with an agenda, notably about the long-standing issues with Horizon.

I don't think she has yet fully absorbed what she enabled, and how bad this is. Her job was to challenge the CEO and the Executives, not enable them.

Break for lunch till 2pm.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 13:02

Under stress
Memory problems
Irritation
Having to apologise to MPs
Realising there could be other undisclosed computer issues eg bugs
'I can't help you with that, I'm afraid ...'

What a shit show.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 12:58

'Badly handled ... by everybody really'

PerkingFaintly · 05/06/2024 12:53

AP claims the PO feared Second Sight's report would advance a negative take on Horizon without offering evidence to substantiate that take, other than anecdote.

So the PO... advanced a negative take on the (as yet unseen!) Second Sight report without offering evidence to substantiate their, the PO's, negative take on it.

They really were the champions of DARVO.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 12:49

AP says she was 'sceptical' about Second Sight. Worried about becoming close to having a public document and causing avoidable damage to the PO, and negative publicity.

It would unkind to ask how that's going for her now.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 12:46

AP is contradicting the evidence in front of her (about attitudes toward Second Sight).

Then Mr Beer KC introduces a veeeery interesting email from AP to Vennells. She's stumbling a bit now.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 12:19

This evidence is nauseatingly fascinating.

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 12:18

The second 10 minute break of the morning. Back in 5 mins or a bit more.

OP posts:
AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 12:17

Lunde · 05/06/2024 12:15

Have they broken for lunch? I had to answer a phone call and now they've gone

2nd morning break.

AutumnCrow · 05/06/2024 12:17

Susan Crichton and Mike Young named by Alice Perkins as pushing back on her preferred scope of review, as well as giving her the some organisational guff about capacity. That rings true.

You need a backbone of steel to Chair a business like that successfully and it sounds like AP ended up out of her depth, swimming with the treacle sharks.

Lunde · 05/06/2024 12:15

Have they broken for lunch? I had to answer a phone call and now they've gone

Original poster
nauticant · 05/06/2024 12:10

The evidence here is showing AP in a good light, that she wanted the external review of subpostmaster cases to include those who hadn't been prosecuted and those who had. It looks like she was in opposition to "the business" which was in cover-up mode.

OP posts: