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

The problem with this whole enquiry is that the senior executive can’t take responsibility without risking jail, so they are very careful. They could be granted immunity, and I am sure that they would say very different things, but I don’t think they should.

The only enquiry which should be happening is by the police, hopefully leading to charges.

I am not sure I really see the point of this enquiry, entertaining as it is, except to kick the can down the road and buy more time for the powerful to evade proper scrutiny in a real court.

Isn't she about 20 years too late to use that as an excuse?

Whilst I fully support the need for this enquiry as it was a terrible travesty of justice, I can't help but wonder what will be the outcome at the end.

As all the key people are being so evasive and playing a role so as not to incriminate themselves, the lawyers are highlighting yes that they were aware of multiple issues but collectively they all went along with the denial of anything seriously wrong with Horizon.

Once the enquiry has been concluded, with whatever summing up papers released what happens next? Will any of the people involved actually face prosecution or will it be just their public fall from grace and major trashing of their reputations?

Many of them are well into retirement age, or approaching it. Are they just going to have tarnished reputations at the end of all of this?

I feel it will be like the Hillsborough enquiry. The fans were cleared of blame, but as far as I remember, no one responsible has gone to prison or fined substantially.

@Peregrina I think the difference is that the inquiry is looking at the level of corporate conspiracy not simply to cover up bad decisions but to continue with the decisions, for years, knowing they were bad.

What we are seeing is evidence of a wilful conspiracy. The motive seems to have been to protect the good name of the Post Office. But why was that so important? Why did it matter so much?

This is the thing I don't understand.

I assume, as always, money.

Yes certainly around the time it was being privatised, and to protect bonuses.

I do like the write-ups by Nick Wallis:

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/the-taxi-for-paula-vennells-which-never-quite-came/

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/more-dispatches-from-the-post-office-bunker-the-pr-guy-goes-tonto/

The often captures things that, even while watching the stream, I don't quite grasp.

Is it on today?

No, back on Tuesday 11 June.

Link here for the timetable:
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-5-and-6-timetable

(For me as much as anyone else, as I keep having to Google it.)

Thanks!

Next week is going to be full on.

In particular Lord Grabiner KC and Andrew Parsins from Bond Dickinson.

We have already seen so many poor behaviours from them, in emails, so hearing from them directly is going to be very interesting
Will they take the same approach as their colleague Stephen Dilley, and be patronising, arrogant and (well basically) a dick head.
Or will they take responsibility for what they did?

I think the line of questioning will be on:
,,▪︎ the advice they gave to stop putting meetings in writing/or wrapping notes in 'legal and privileged'
..▪︎ non disclosure of Garerh Jenkins Witness statement
..▪︎ running up legal bill so that Alan Bates and Co couldn't afford the Group Litigaton
..▪︎ the decision to make an application to recuse the Judge from the Group Litigation.

I honestly think these enquiries are a really expensive way of keeping wealthy and powerful people out of the clinker, and deferring expensive compensation payments to the next government.

What are they actually designed to do? If I had perjured myself and got someone a prison term, what would happen to me when I was found out? I wouldn’t be summoned to a (relatively) polite chat, I would have a police interview under caution and then, if prosecuted and found guilty, jailed.

Apparently these enquiries (Covid, Post Office, Hillsborough, contaminated blood-just the ones I can remember) have cost the exchequer £130 billion (and obviously enriched the legal and accounting profession). And what have been the results? Any meaningful prison sentences? Any large fines or bonuses repaid? Ah yes, some people have given up their MBEs and OBEs…..

It really is a total disgrace and will make the real victims believe that justice is only visited upon the plebs….

They're to deal with rotten cultures where all the relevant people knew to do the wrong thing without necessarily conspiring, and where they operated to gaslight their victims and the public.

I don't expect any of the high profile people to go to jail. In fact, I doubt there will be sufficient evidence even to get them criminally convicted. The authorities could take some of them to court without expecting to win simply because it would be a punishment but the criminal justice system shouldn't be used for that (although it often is).

I think there's value in pulling the covers away completely and presenting to the public what rotten stuff has been going on underneath.

@nauticant ,

Thank you for answering my point but I will have to respectfully disagree (It will be interesting to see what the sub postmasters think when it is over).

They don’t pull the covers away at all, but allow well resourced people to obfuscate and make themselves ever more remote from the wrongdoing.

And, at the end, no one is actually wiser. You get a several hundred page report , which is read by an handful, and pompous people intone that ‘lessons have been learned’. Except they haven’t, and the Post Office and Royal Mail continue to exist (maybe with new ownership) and, after a couple of unpleasant days, the ex senior execs get back to planning luxurious summer hols using the bonuses that they took from persecuting subpostmasters.

And the cost? If the government have a few hundred million or more to spare, why not directly compensate the victims in a timely manner, before they are too old to enjoy it?

While all that is true, it has woken the general public up to the behaviour. So people will be less trusting of the brand (rightfully so), and there will be more accountability. Of course it may slip again over time, but it's definitely shown them that they're not beyond public scrutiny at the very least.

While all that is true, it has woken the general public up to the behaviour.

Yes, it has, but next time we get told that we have to pay ridiculous salaries and huge bonuses, in order to get the 'Best people', how exactly are we going to challenge it?

None of the people we have seen of the PO management seem remotely the best.

And I would hazard a guess that if the management of say the privatised water companies were held up to scrutiny would find the same festering mess underneath.

They don’t pull the covers away at all, but allow well resourced people to obfuscate and make themselves ever more remote from the wrongdoing.

I don't get this at all. Have you watched any of the evidence sessions?

@nauticant ,

Watched a fair chunk and read a lot on here, and elsewhere.

I think there have been a few insincere apologies, a few crocodile tears (mainly PV) and a few eyebrow raising moments, but no great ‘gotcha’ moments, as they have all been able to prepare in advance ably advised by expensive barristers (have they had to pay for those?).

It was the media that exposed this, not the enquiry.

Will this enhance the settlements? Let’s see. Do you think that PV et al will care for long when they are enjoying their very well funded retirement amongst their friends and supporters? I seriously doubt it.

If I had perjured myself and got someone a prison term, what would happen to me when I was found out?

With, as far as I can see, only one exception, the people who have given evidence to the inquiry so far did not give evidence in court against subpostmasters, so have not perjured themselves. However, a significant proportion of them may be guilty of perverting the course of justice or conspiracy to do so. Anyone who has been given a self-incrimination warning is being investigated by the Met for possible criminal charges. Alan Bates has said that, if people aren't charged, he will raise funds to bring private criminal prosecutions.

@prh47bridge ,

Thanks for that.

I really hope these investigations and/or private prosecutions come to something but, as opposed to the U.S, we have a lamentable record in pursuing corporate/white collar crime, especially compared to the U.S.

We seem to prefer these long winded and expensive enquiries.

I would like to see a culture of transparency and accountability - particularly in terms of recruitment - come out of this. I would like the people who could have spoken up and didn't to suffer both public opprobrium and heavy financial penalties; reputational and financial bankruptcy. I would like their families to be both embarrassed by them and not to be able to work any connections - a hard cut off from public office for three generations. We need to get some decency into the management of public affairs.

I don't think it would be in any way fair to punish their families tbh. Their bibs have been well dirtied already and they've not even done anything!

I completely understand where you are coming from @Newbutoldfather .

The issue, in my view, is a British one. Unlike some other countries, we seem to have a barrier to holding our political, corporate (and dare I say it) upper society criminal responsible for their actions.

Someone far cleverer than me will probably be able to explain why this is.

Recently, after covid, I remember discussions about holding Boris Johnson, and others criminally responsible for the deaths of thousands,
One political commentator said we couldn't do that because then no-one would want to be Prime Minister.

I.think.thats a stupid reason.

We need to shift the balance.

Our position should very much be "Mr/Mrs X you have this responsible position. It comes with a lot of power and money. But remember, if you fuck it up, use it for illegal means etc we will hold you accountable"

Until we have a huge shift in our culture, all we have are Public Inquiries. Whilst they will.not resolve everything, this is what we have.
And we need to keep trying.