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

It's a real mixture of trying to decide who these people actually are and how capable they actually were.

Firstly, yes they are all coming across as gormless idiots, but obviously they are playing a role here in an absolute hard nosed attempt of not saying anything of note that can actually incriminate themselves leading to a future prosecution.
This is giving the impression that they hadn't a clue what they were doing.

But there is just too much evidence that suggests that they did know what they were doing. And what they were doing was actively ignoring, playing down and wilfully avoiding any evidence presented to them that the Horizon system was not in fact robust and that there were serious bugs in the system.

It's almost as though because they believed that some people at the sharp end historically had in fact had their "fingers in the till" all Horizon was doing was proving this. Plus the fact that in relation to the numbers using the system on a daily basis who were not reporting issues, it almost allowed them to take the majority view and ignore the minority experiencing issues.

Then the major issues around negative media, separation of the two identities, floatation, not wanting to "open a can of worms" etc etc. It was a huge boiling point of denial actively played out by a board and exec who seemed to encourage each other to continue down the route of denial rather than question whether there really was merit in the fact Horizon was unsafe.

Some simply didn't believe there was anything wrong with the system so why bother investigating something they believed to be working well. Where as others had different views.

Yes - she does have a touch of Lady Catherine de Bourgh ....

There is no logic in the Post Office board's 'logic'.

Which seemed to be: The system works well and anyone loudly and clearly saying that it isn't and who is contacting MPs in order to amplify this are obviously the ones who have succumbed to 'temptation' and have their 'fingers in the till'. [Quoting the PO's own words]

Is Susan Crichton due to give evidence again?

Firstly, yes they are all coming across as gormless idiots,

The public should demand all the money back that they were paid as they took the money under the false pretence that they could do the job for which they were being paid.

I know it is a ploy, I believe they all knew exactly what was going on.

I would have far more respect for them if they just put their hands up and said We were totally and utterly wrong and we completely fucked up. All this lying, obfuscation and pleading the poor deluded innocent is pathetic.

I’m watching this on YouTube to catch up but getting so angry I think I will switch it off or won’t be able to sleep .
What a load of useless, self serving overpaid shits this lot are proving to be . How much precious tax has this mess cost us all ??? Beggars belief .
I will watch tomorrow though - must be a glutton for punishment .

I was the same . . . when AP said she was tired, I wondered how many nights those poor SPM's stayed up, desperately trying to balance their accounts . . .

Back to how the board could find itself in ignorance of significant facts. Three things can all have been happening:
Sometimes the executive withheld critical documents and information from the board to keep a lid on things.
And:
The main information flow to the board, Vennells to AP, was often done verbally with no record kept of briefings (this was confirmed by AP), and it's likely some critical information was conveyed by this conduit but there's no record so knowledge can be denied.
And:
When information did manage to get to the board, and there is a record of it, AP tended not to recognise its significance (which coincidentally suited the executive keeping a lid on things).

My laptop has just flat refused to stream AP's testimony this morning, presumably in disgust.

I'm in now, after significant coaxing. But I can't really blame it.

JB: Why was the board obsessed with liability, including personal liability, suggesting knowledge of the legal problems, while you're saying now that at the same time no one on the board knew of the legal problems?

Answer from AP was to throw Chris Day under the bus. She must have spent her life being disaapointed in people all being so rubbish.

She does such a good sad-voice when blaming Susan Chrichton!

JB: Why did you use the word "alibi" in relation to your view of Susan Crichton? [He then has to explain to AP what an alibi is.]

AP: Although I wrote "alibi" I didn't mean "alibi".

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

AP has perked up

I thought it remarkable how her memory had recovered.

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.

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

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

A life of continual disappointments.

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.