Paula Vennells was done the other week, the Post Office Inquiry is now questioning associates and others - thread 3

[nauticant]

A continuation of this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5081592-paula-vennels-being-questioned-at-the-post-office-inquiry-followed-by-others-thread-2

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

This has been a huge bugbear of mine during this inquiry.

Every PO senior leader, Paula, Mark, Alice, Angela etc have said "huge delays with Second Sight and taking too long"

Yet, what the conveniently forget to add is the delays were because the PO were dragging thier heels providing the information to SS.
It's only when they are pressed what the delays were, do they finally admit the delays were due to the PO.

It's getting right on my wick.

Warmington explaining that every time he tried to explain something to Post Office that was not convenient to them they would go into ferocious pushback, feigned ignorance, and gaslighting. Every sentence they submitted to Post Office turned into a battle of Post Office wanting it to be turned into something else.

Sounds utterly exhausting.

Nice throwaway mention of "Sir Alan" there.

With the emphasis on Sir 😁

Sir Alan the Astute.

A nice explanation by Warmington about the nuance around "systemic" bugs. Depending on what you're talking about this can refer to bugs that affect pretty much everyone operating in the system, which would be unmissable, and those spread throughout the system that can pop up and affect anyone at any time, but this can be rare in actuality, so you're having this happen occasionally, but with the significant point being that for those who encountered those bugs, the consequences could be life-changing.

I think RW is being very honest and illuminating about the use and misuse of 'systemetic' regarding the Horizon system(s).

RW rightfully points out it that they felt that 'bug' events could be 'rare' but have catastrophic effects on individuals, and that this is what the MPs were primarily concerned about - the wrongful prosecutions and unsafe convictions, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Great throwaway remark from Warmington that he's never played tennis with Susan Crichton. (This was a rumour shared, I think, by Vennells and Perkins, down the road, to imply that Crichton had been somewhat dodgy in being involved in the appointment of SS.)

It brings to mind, paraphrasing: "I've never played tennis with that woman."

That said, Warmington is being somewhat kind in his assessment of Crichton. (They'd been colleagues years before, I think at GE.)

Very much so!

This draft document in which Warmington gave an assessment of Post Office's investigations is precient and pretty much on the money. Shame it never went anywhere.

That answer about not finalising it though, very wishy washy.

Ahhh, I think I've cracked why Graham Ward might be being brought back on Thurdsay.

In Graham Ward original testimony, he wrote an email to the legal team explaining that getting SPMR to pay the money for the supposed losses is really difficult through the Civil courts.

Whereas if you prosecute them criminally, the judge can order a confiscation order, which makes it easier to remove the SPMR assets.

So, this draft document from Ron, he has cracked it. He spotted the PO security team push more for criminal prosecutions because it is much easier to get the money from the SPMR.
(Which then end up in suspense account - then onto PO profits- then paid out as dividends/bonuses)

Very good account there of Warmington having met Crichton, made clear to her that there were possible miscarriages if justice, and she needed to get criminal legal advice. In August (?) 2012.

Damn the GRO!

Sorry for posting out of sync but watching on catch up.

The points Ian made about the suspense account and its reconciliation is spot on.

IANA Accountant but I can’t believe they didn’t balance the books and investigate the money in the suspense accounts.

Remember that watching at 1.25x or even 1.5x playback speed is possible and means you can catch up a bit.

Terrific document to end on, the transcript of the chat with Alun Jones.

Very powerful end to the questions from Beer.

Quick question: dyes anyone know who the guy is sat next to Mr Stein?

He has been sarlt next Mr Stein everyday, but never speaks/ asks questions. He often will nod his head along, like he is doing now.

Part of me thinks he us a lawyer at Howe & Co.

But I'm now starting to think he is a SPMR

• sorry for the awful spelling. Hopefully it makes sense

Oh, it sounds like Kay Linell (sp?) is going to be a terrific witness to watch. That was an utterly glowing account from Warmington.

Ahh, an illuminating detail there. The money Post Office would cream off from the subpostmasters and add to its profit and loss account would be between, say, £100,000 to £612,000 per year.

Wow. Just wow. And RW still cannot say where the money in the suspense accounts has gone.

I love Ms Page.

I have some knowledge of suspense accounts and accountancy.

The problem here is suspense accounts are quite a basic mechanism in accountancy. So, it puts the fear of God in me that nobody in the Post Office seems to understand them.

I would like to know who prepared the accounts for PO? Did they have in-house accountants or did they hire one of the Big 4 to do it for them?
Who did thier Audit each year?
Who signed off the accounts each year?

For such a big corporation, they seem to have such a haphazard way of dealing with their financial obligations.