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

I'm getting the sense of a little more deference being shown by Jason Beer KC to this witness.

Beer has my heart, I'm afraid. Well that and the other council with the silky voice.

@PerkingFaintly

Omg are you talking about silly voice Maloney?

I'd like to be in the dock being questioned by him

OK, so lying at the heart of Grabiner's explanations is that the people working together to derail the subpostmasters' case were fine and decent people so there was nothing improper going on and everyone's word is beyond doubt.

Glad that's been sorted out.

I'm not sure.

My opinion on Jason Beer's style is he always starts softly, allows the witness to speak, and I always think why is Beer treating this witness with kid gloves?"
But as it goes on you start to see Beer really go in and leave the witness contradicting themselves or blustering.

It's like an episode of Murder She Wrote. 😁

So now we're on to the PO's desperate attempt to survive another day via making the judge recuse.

For some reason this is what's playing in my head...

🎶
One day more
Another day, another destiny
This never-ending road to Calvary
These men who seem to know my crime
Will surely come a second time
One day more
🎶

Grabiner has no idea at all who originated the idea to seek to recuse the judge.

In Grabiner's world it sprang into being fully formed and he didn't wonder how this had happened.

I fell slightly behind catching up with the previous witness so I’m just starting with Lord Grabiner. Definite Mr Hochhauser vibes here.

Grabiner: I agree with this summary of the meeting.

time passes....

Grabiner: I don't agree with this summary of the meeting

"I make no comment on that bollocks"

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

This is subtle stuff and it's difficult to understand exactly what these lines are argument are really about. (At least so far.)

They're all defensive as fuck today.

I'm relying on you @nauticant to explain to me Beer's purpose here.

(You are now my unpaid "lawyer whisperer"). 😁

"I can't really climb into his mind"

Dude, why are you here? Passive aggression central today

He's quite undermining to Beer

At a high level, this cross-examination is about whether the decision to seek recusal was not based on the actual merits, ie the real chances of success, but was rather to throw a spanner into the works of the progress of the subpostmasters' case, simply because they were being successful.

I think he is trying to anticipate Beer's line.

A few lawyers have tried to do this - answer questions Beer hasn't asked and they think they know where Beer is leading them. Each time, they are wrong and end up looking foolish.

With all the lawyers involved with the PO, they all seem to have a real problem with this inquiry and being questioned on thier actions/decisions/advice.

It's very annoying, and undermining. Like listen, and let his questions and points land. Then respond in kind.

This is such a lawyer trait.

It seems that Grabiner was mainly going along with what he was been told by Neuberger, who was gung-ho for recusal and for reasons unknown thought there were good grounds and a good chance of success.

Which makes it a shame Neuberger isn't, so far, intended to give evidence.

Board uncomfortable. 'Lawyer led decision?' Ooof.

Is this linked to the PO strategy to use the endless money available to them, knowing the subpostmasters had limited funds for the GLO, to keep litigating?

Essentially bullying the SPMR?

I suspect Lord Grabiner isn't going to acknowledge e knew this was the PO strategy.

This is ridiculous. 🤣🤣🤣

At least the guy before him waited a while before he started getting stroppy

Beer's tactics include suggesting Board manipulated into seeking recusal.

(Remember, Vennells was 'proud and pleased' or similar with the Board.)

Its easy to get the impression that there was something fishy underlying this, that to some end the top lawyers, who seem to relish the power they wield, manipulated the Board into doing something they were highly averse to.

Ahh, we're now going to get Grabiner's carping about not getting his way over the recusal application. Hopefully this will shed some light, and particularly in relation to animus towards Justice Fraser.