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

Jesus. He's so self-righteous.

Omg "inappropriate behaviour and communication" 👀

This guy is absolutely insufferable.

I was thinking about what stake these top legal people had in the Post Office case going one way or another and I'm wondering if I'm missing the point. That instead this is rather a load of very high-powered people using the Post Office litigation as a field on which to conduct a war, with them fighting alongside their allies, against those they perceived as their enemies.

I want to know more about this "inappropriate behaviour", like I dunno if Beer is leading up to it, or if this guy will let Beer reach what he wants to say on it.

But I want to know now what that means!

You're on the money again @nauticant .

Lord Grabiner is trying his best to avoid answering these questions, but this clear they had a personal issue/problem with Judge Fraser.

He keeps trying to say "my mate Newberger also thought so too", like that's some sort of justification.

Judge Fraser is a Very Big Cheese Indeed now. This is fascinating.

Here goes Beer......

I think I'm starting to make sense of Beer's questioning.
At the start LG advice was very strong- recusal application would have very strong success.
But here wee are now, LG changing his tune, and now saying the recusal application would only have "reasonable" success and Court of Appeal would be the only way to go.

I believe this is called arse-covering when you've made the wrong call.

Him: "I thought you ought to read the lot"
Beer: "I'm very grateful for your suggestions and will make sure to do exactly as you require" smirks

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

THERE'S A WAR REFERENCE!!! @nauticant

How are you doing this?

You are good 👍

What a git! After Beer said thank you, Grabiner said "I'm not tempted to say thank you"

Ooh thank you, Quirkyme, I misheard that and lost the "not"!

Couldn't understand what had just happened.

Dear me, he's not very gracious is he, Grabiner?

Once I decided that much of what Vennells was doing was a mean girl act with her BFFs, I just couldn't shake seeing one aspect of this mess in terms of groups conducting their wars against their enemies minou123.

Not the dominating factor, but always there and sometimes it would come to the fore.

Well I am impressed @nauticant

You saw this for what it was a load of very high-powered people using the Post Office litigation as a field on which to conduct a war

The final email between Newberger and Grabiner saying "it is annoying to be on the losing side (although in a battle, not the war)" shows you are bang on the money.

I don't know about others on this thread but I found the evidence this afternoon had a sinister aspect. Something to do with sensing undercurrents but being unsure what they signify.

I agree. The Bar (and by extension the Bench) is a kind of village, a gossipy, snipey, competitive place where professional and personal grudges can be fought out for decades in a ready made arena.

We are not in the know. I bet the undercurrents would not be unknown to the regulars drinking in the pubs and bars around the RCJ.

I'm just astonished that a KC would be so stupid as to put his thoughts about 'the war' ,whatever that is, in writing. I'll wager he was told on his first day in chambers and has advised others countless times to never put anything in writing you would not wish to hear being read back to you in open court.

@nauticant - just another one to add her thanks for your threads and 'take' on the various witnesses throughout this Inquiry. This is the only televised Inquiry that I've ever paid attention to as most previous Inquiry(ies) I've find just too nauseating and pointless to actually watch. I did read the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry cover to cover, twice, so it's not through disinterest that I tend to switch off.

But this Inquiry has me glued, I have to peel myself away otherwise I wouldn't get anything else done...so thank you again and to all the other posters who articulate very well what so many of us are thinking.

I don't know what the magic combination of factors is TheHateIsNotGood, but I'm finding this scandal to be utterly compelling in a way that exceeds the "very interesting" I've got from following "equivalent" scandals in the past.

The rest of the week looks like it will be equally compelling.

I tend to find it very indicative of the general 'sweeping aside' of any complaints from the people 'below' that seems to be endemic throughout our society on very many levels.

Here we have an example of some of the most diligent, trustworthy and useful members of society literally taken to The Tower and 'tortured'; more reminiscent of centuries ago rather than the supposedly 'civilized' times of 21st Century Britain.

Heads might not literally roll nowadays but plenty of heads should hang in shame and many more should think about how they treat others too.

It did seem they had small-p political stuff going on that we weren't privy to.

I don't know enough of that milieu to know whether the sort of willy-waggling we saw today passes for normal in some legal circles. A bit like City machismo, perhaps?

willy-waggling

That's exactly it.

I'm a over 40 year old woman, I've been about. I thought I'd seen everything and nothing could shock me.

But this has. I think that's why I was a bit OTT earlier with the war reference.

These are mature men, highly intelligent, at the top of thier profession,.
I'm truly gobsmacked.

What that suggests is they were actively trying to wreck the subpostmasters case, that could have meant this scandal could have remained covered up, maybe for many more years, or permanently, not motivated out of any animosity towards the SPMs, and not in the interests of the company since the company had to have their arm twisted and got the worst of all outcomes as a result, but because a couple of very senior lawyers, both in the Lords, had decided Justice Fraser's face didn't fit or something.

If this is correct, and I accept there are things we don't know, that would be horrific.

It would also be interesting to know to what extent the very weak and passive PO leadership from the PV and AP affected things and allowed these senior lawyers freedom to pursue their own vendettas

Is it today we get to see the Wombles?

nauticant · Today 07:57

What that suggests is they were actively trying to wreck the subpostmasters case ... because a couple of very senior lawyers, both in the Lords, had decided Justice Fraser's face didn't fit or something.

I seem to remember reading that they wanted him to recuse himself because he's known as a sensible judge and not in the least pliant.