Paula Vennells is history but now at the Post Office Inquiry is Fujitsu distinguished engineer Gareth Jenkins - thread 4

Overall, while I find the evidence of those on the Board convincing, that they were kept in the dark or even actively misled by the executive, it doesn't answer the question about why, if that's the case, they didn't become suspicious, and then active, with all of the red flags fluttering in the breeze?

Case in point is Storey. By her own account she ended up becoming distanced from her ultimate boss, ShEx, she probably wasn't getting fully open information from her fellow Board members, and was being misled by the executive. What was she doing beyond being sat in a vital role, being clever and capable, but ultimately not doing anything in the critical areas of interest to the Inquiry?

Ultimately Storey, like the rest of the witnesses from the Board, joins in with the circling of the wagons around Alice Perkins.

Since Perkins is the weak link in terms of the line that the Board knew nothing, and couldn't have learned anything because of the behaviour of the executive, I think I'm going to have to re-watch Perkins' evidence because now I've got much more of a grasp of what was going on.

Storey being asked about Post Office's insurance against claims, and particularly whether, putting directors' personal liability aside, the Board should have been concerned about having insurance for the company as a whole to be used in the event of a class action. Storey said a lot of words that I'd translate as shrug. This is part of the evidence where she's distinctly shaky although, like the rest of her evidence, she's keeping her composure.

Susan Crichton is back on the naughty chair, excluded from the Board meeting on 16 July 2013.

Just before the break Sir Wyn Williams expresses surprise at the Board apparently not discussing (the first) reports of subpostmasters being jailed over significant amounts of money. Storey acknowledges that with hindsight it should have merited discussion.

This is being done Board meeting by Board meeting looking at how the significant litigation reports were developing over time.

What's clear is that the significant litigation reports in 2012 were treated as matters of minor interest only. Also, Storey seemed to be insulated from a lot of the information that would have helped her develop a sense of curiosity. That applies to the Board in general.

Her first Post Office Board meeting was 18 April 2012 so she was there around the time the scandal was ramping up internally.

If her account is to be believed, so far she's among the people with the clearest of recollections of things from 10+ years ago. She does come across as someone having a grip.

Broadly, Post Office didn't want her as a NED because if she was embedded in ShEx there would be issues of confidentiality and conflict of interest, for example when Post Office would be in negotiations with the government over funding. As a result she wasn't part of the ShEx Shareholder Team.

A picture is being painted of her being rather separate from ShEx and not privy to relevant information.

Last day in post was in March 2012.

This is not correct, I must have misheard.

Last day of this phase of the Inquiry. It's Mr Blake rather than Mr Beer

Susannah Storey. Originally an investment banker, secondment to ShEx in 2006, first ShEx NED on Post Office Board following separation from Royal Mail. Last day in post was in March 2012. Now Permanent Under Secretary at DCMS, so she's been effective in climbing the greasy pole. Sounds posh, a somewhat drawl-y delivery, and comes across as self-assured.

Inevitably we get round to Susan Crichton not being allowed in the Board meeting and having to sit outside on the naughty chair.

First up is Neil McCausland, Post Office senior NED. The line from his evidence so far is that the Board was misled by the executive, and he points the finger at Vennells and Crichton. In this narrative of noble Board treated badly by dishonest and incompetent executive he's allied with Alice Perkins who by his account would appear to be some kind of management guru who tried her best to reform Vennells, but to no avail.

It's a narrative that explains very nicely how it was almost impossible for the Board to get to the truth.

Unusually, the Inquiry will be sitting tomorrow, on a Monday, and then this phase ends the following day:

Monday 29 July - Neil McCausland - former Senior Non-Executive Director and Interim Chair of Post Office Ltd

Tuesday 30 July - Susannah Storey - former Shareholder Executive / UK Government Investments Official

It isn't clear what the significance of their evidence might be but it seems it'll be more ShEx shenanigans. Susannah Storey's name has come up before, I think in the context of Post Office resisting oversight that she was proposing. (But I might have made that up.)

And if he didn't read them he was giving critical briefings to the Board purporting to be on top of subjects that he is now saying he was somewhat clueless about. Hence the comment from Mr Henry that Edwards' defence is effectively one of negligence.

Edwards looks like he might burst into tears as a result of the agonies he's going through in trying to avoid being honest over this.

Edwards has decided that this subject is such a can of worms that his level of honesty and frankness, which so far hasn't been too bad, is taking a nose-dive.

1.5x speed works a treat because for these proceedings they're usually speaking slowly and clearly.

Oh. Here's something looking somewhat conspiracy-y between Post Office and ShEx to nobble the prospectus and thus not fully inform prospective purchasers of shares in Royal Mail of the risks.