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

We had a chap in Ireland who used 'in my mature recollection ' as a cover all for 'I'm talking complete crap'. This is obviously the modern version.

Yes, they didn’t think of that for the bingo card. Ever more creative uses of language are arising from the inquiry, that’s for sure.

Nor was "I forget what your question was" on the bingo card!

It's not surprising then that he can't recollect what happened more than a decade ago if he can't recall what happened two minutes ago.

It's becoming clear that they'll struggle to get much useful out of Robinson but Andrew Parsons (Thurs and Fri of this week) is the source of much of the truly awful conduct.

This email about the two factions in POL is fascinating. So fascinating in fact that Robinson gave his most definitive "I have absolutely no recollection of any of this" including a bonus "and I can't reconstruct it".

Bloody scumbag.

This is an excellent exploration of "what's good for Post Office in this litigation" is not necessarily in the interests of Post Office in general nor in the interests of those affected.

So here we have Andrew Parsons, an external lawyer, wanting to orchestrate things to overturn the wishes of the Chairman, instructed by a legal silk interested in miscarriages of justice, to suit the purposes of the civil litigation. What a subversion of the operation of a company and the responsibilities of those involved!

There was an audible sigh there 😂

When he doesn't like the question, he reverts to that 'slouch'. Very strange.

Placemarking

Robinson hiding behind "I don't recall" but is also trying to claim that without any recollection, a very clear summary of a critically important meeting made by Andrew Parsons will not be correct.

Not to mention a lack of understanding 🙄

The explanation Jason Beer is exploring here is that Andrew Parsons had twisted the advice Robinson had given in order to suit the purposes of Parsons and Bond Dickinson.

Thank you.

I wasn't quite understanding the purpose of Beer's questions in this section and why he is focused on the Swift review.

The Swift review was to uncover miscarriages of justice. But its output wouldn't have been privileged. Therefore, it was to be halted and restarted as part of the litigation so that it's output would (arguably) be privileged. This is OK, but the necessary result of this change would have limited what the Swift review was to have done and so would dilute its effectiveness in dealing with the miscarriages of justice. This is not OK, and potentially raises issues of professional conduct and impeding justice.

.

The Post Office is certainly gifted in the art of inaccurate précis, isn't it?

First Paula Vennels' descriptions of Second Sight's work, which were repeatedly, er, creative.
Now Andy Parson's(?) summary of de Garr Robinson's advice.

Ahhhhh, now I get it. Thank you so much @nauticant you've explained it so well.

Tiny violin needed here!

Very important meeting on 10 Sep 2018 to discuss Gareth Jenkins and suppression of him as a witness in the civil lutigation. Loads of key poleople there. There is no note of what happened at the meeting. Fortunately Robinson has used the neuralyser on himself in relation to Gareth Jenkins.

He's quite shameless regarding the lack of note of meetings.

I know it's incredibly childish, but I keep laughing every time I hear 'Womble' 😂

I know, I know - yet I managed to refrain from commenting...

You're a better person than I 😳