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

[nauticant]

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

By correctly I mean in accordance with the strict letter of the law. I thought it was cowardly.

I do wonder if Paula Vennells is now suffering a crisis of the soul. She, no doubt, had a view of herself as being a 'good' person. The three days of questioning peeled that back layer by layer to reveal a person who was anything but good.

I expect she will shortly be admitted to a room in the Huw Edwards Wing of the Clinic for Disgraced Public Figures.

Her performance has been utterly pathetic. It was clear that her primary focus was protecting the financial value and reputation of the post office and anything that did not fit that aim was ignored or attacked. Her crocodile tears are rightly being met with eye-rolling and terseness by the lawyers and chair.

Sadly, in my experience, she is the archetype of modern public sector leadership. Out of her depth, morally vapid, unable to take responsibility, looking to pass the buck to others at every turn, obsessed with reputation over substance. This is what happens when you put mates in high places and don't pay for excellence.

The thing is I’m sure there are loads of really excellent CEO’s or potential CEO’s who would work for £0.5M plus bonuses.

they recruited her from within. I think there lies the problem.

And let’s face it you wouldn’t even have to be absolutely amazing to be better than her. Just institute some basic management controls and stop deciding everything by email between about 5 people/your mates who only tell you what you want to hear. And sack the Communications Director for a start.

I agree, but I suspect she still views herself in this way. A perfect person surrounded by fools who cannot understand her and let her down.

To me, it's more likely that she'll have a period of contemplation and reflection that will allow her world view becoming even more firmly established.

I don’t think she will at all. She will console herself that they all agreed with her, anyone could/would have made the same mistake.

There is zero chance that she will actually examine her conscience as to the example she was setting/ culture she was creating.

She said she loved the Post Office, and that stops her considering how her love for this inanimate thing prevented her from reflecting on her role in creating miscarriages of justice. She just didn’t see SPM as people like her that were deserving of respect and justice.

She saw the second sight report as something which they would “Take Action On”. If you read the invitation to the SPM to take part in the 2nd Sight review what is clear is (a) They saw this as an act of largesse, (b) just how deeply they patronize the SPM (c) how much they assumed 2nd sight would of course play ball. (d) there was nothing really serious happening, it never occurred to them that sending people wrongfully to prison was a thing they should be held accountable for beyond a platitude.
Literally not one person around Paula Vennels could see that POL, were the prosecutors and therefore were in effect the Frank Scuse and the Bent Coppers of the story. Of course they think miscarriages of justice are appalling, but extenuating circumstances apply to the ones in which they are instrumental.

I am sure that, while she was CEO, Vennells never believed that there were any miscarriages of justice. She was part of the culture that was typified by investigators who regarded subpostmasters as enemies of Post Office.

Her thinking was exposed by her comment that "as CEO you aren't responsible for everything that happens underneath you". I'm afraid you are. You may not be aware of it. You may even disapprove of it. But you are still responsible for it, even if what has happened goes against your express instructions.

I view Vennells as a symptom not a cause. She was able to rise to the top of a rotten culture, that was already well established, and had already convicted many subpostmasters. She proved to be the right person for the job because she had no interest in tackling the rot but was assiduous in covering it up and allowing it to persist.

it never occurred to them that sending people wrongfully to prison was a thing they should be held accountable for beyond a platitude.
Literally not one person around Paula Vennels could see that POL, were the prosecutors and therefore were in effect the Frank Scuse and the Bent Coppers of the story.Of coursethey think miscarriages of justice are appalling, but extenuating circumstances apply to the ones in which they are instrumental.

Fully agree @OligoN

This is typified from the witness evidence from everyone: from the Secuirty Investigations guys, In house Criminal Lawyers, all the way to Paula Vennels.

When the investigators and lawyers were questioned last year, in this Inquiry, they were shown how they didn't do their jobs properly.
There was lots of "I don't recall", "I dont remember" etc, but when they couldnt deny it, their excuse for completely fucking up was "i was told to do that, I was just following orders".

Now, forgive me for sounding crass, but we've heard this excuse before........

They all agreed miscarriages of justice is terrible, but all of them came up with this stupid excuse:
it wasn't me guv'
but if it was me, I'm not to blame cos I was just doing what I was told

And this attitude goes all the way up to the top.

Sorry for rant, I'm still can't get over their patronising, arrogant, refusal to admit any mistakes, and attitudes when they were giving evidence in this inquiry.

I've worked in both the public and private sectors. All my managers and mentors, in both the public and private sectors, told me that good managers take personal responsibility for all their direct reports, especially if things go wrong, but would give credit to those that work under them when things go well.

PV must have been a spectacularly bad manager - but to be sort of fair, she must have been set a spectacularly bad example over the years to have learnt and thought that her attitude was normal, let along acceptable

On second thoughts, I did experience one manager that was a bully who used to take the credit for others' hard work and achievements but beat them up and blame them when things went wrong (eg when I was cracking under the strain of covering for a colleague who'd gone off ill with stress and overwork ). But he was the exception that proved the rule

From the Times:

Very true.

The shirking of responsibility was atrocious.

I tend to think of these things in terms of how I would feel. The guilt would consume me. This probably explains why I have never got beyond lower management!

......

......

as CEO you aren't responsible for everything that happens underneath you

that’s the biggest pile of horseshit going, and she knows it. Its lesson 101 of corporate training at c-suite level.

i actually know a ceo that was prosecuted and went to jail. It was in the USA. He had plenty of advice, some good, some bad and unfortunately for him he listened to the bad. The good advice would have meant swallowing his pride and negotiating a deal with the Feds, slap on the wrist and a fine for the company. Unfortunately he took it all far too personally and tried to front it out, which doesn’t work in the USA when they lose their patience and bring the full force of the government to court.

And it was all over done actions of some front line employees, who were exceeding what they were allowed to do by law. The key for the prosecution was that the company didn’t act and discipline the rogue employees when others raised concerns. And as the guy at the top, he went to jail. I think one other c-suite occupant was also prosecuted and found guilty but avoided jail time.

@minou123 the rant is fully justified

I'm left wondering how people can live with themselves. Do they now understand that for the SPMs their treatment was a Kafka-esque torture?

I would expect most of them had never set foot in a court before in any capacity. To be told they had to plead guilty to crimes they knew they hadn't committed or face worse penalty. Losing their homes, life savings, good standing in their communities.

'Sorry' especially so, so late doesn't even begin to repair this. I am not sure there can ever be atonement for Paula Vennells.

they recruited her from within. I think there lies the problem.

Not really recruited from within. She had something like a 25 year career in private industry - unilever, l'oreal, whitbread and one other before joining the PO, which she did at a senior level and soon becoming Managing Director of the PO side of Royal Mail before the two were split up.

Angela van den Bogard was one recruited from within.

… none of them have read Kafka, let’s be clear on that 😬

Absolutely @GnomeDePlume 💯

Thing is, i think it's even worse than a Kafka-esque torture.

• Firstly taking them to criminal court, to convict them of crimes the SPMR didn't commit. Prison sentences, community orders and criminal records for life.
• Secondly, not just content with that, the PO then started confiscation proceedings, taking every penny the SPMR did (or didn't have). Homes, savings, possessions all gone.
• Thirdly, still not content with that, the PO went after the SPMR health. Physical health, mental health and family relationships. Destroyed it all.
• Fourth, even in death the Post Office still wont leave them alone. Commit suicide or die before your conviction is overturned, the Post Office will still come at you. Numerous PR/Media strategies to try to convince everyone your dearh is your own fault - and critically not the PO fault.
• Finally, even when all that is done. The PO make the compensation schemes difficult to navigate, complex to apply for. And to really make sure you're kicked in the face, only offer tiny amounts of compensation AND have the same lawyers who fucked you over now decide how much compensation.youll get

The PO didn't just ruin the SPMR, they did everything to try to obliterate them.

I've watched all the inquiry, and Jo Hamilton has gone everyday. When she is in the camera shot and sat next to her lawyer, she is there for every single witness.
I've watched her closely, and she never takes her eyes off who ever is sat in the hot seat.
She has this look on her face, that never changes. I don't know how to describe it.
It's not anger, or hatred, or smirking, or revenge
Its a look of pure bravery - I don't know is that too trite?

Anyway, another rant over.

Absolutely true about Jo Hamilton

I don't know how Jo Hamilton does it, you are right about the look on her face and her demeanour.

It's difficult to describe, isn't it?

I've seen other SPMR sirlt beside the lawyers, like Lee Castleton and Anne Quarm

Lee Castleton really got to me. He was there, sat next to his lawyer, when they questioned that knobhead lawyer Stephen Dilley.
If you haven't seen it, watch it. But be prepared to be more angry than you have ever been
Stephen Dilley spent the entire time in the witness stand blaming Lee Castleton:
Refused to acknowledge the settlement offer was a sham, refused to acknowledge any mistakes he made, refused to apologise to Lee Castleton, even though he was sat right there.

How the hell Jo Hamilton and the other SPMR are doing it, I dont know.
What I do know is I couldn't do what they are doing. The pure bravery and dignity is incredible.

Seema Misra too...

Oh gosh yes.

IIRC Seema Misra was there, next to her lawyer, when they were questioning Martin Smith the lawyer from Cartwright King.
They questioned him a note he wrote about 'Misra may crawl out of the woodwork''.

I mean what the fuck! The SPMR were insects to them, no longer seen as humans or people.