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

It's good to meet others with fine taste HomelessAngua.

It was one of the best big serials I've heard on Radio 4.

Sorry I need to correct myself. Matthew Lenton was the document manager for the POL account at Fujitsu.

You would think that the CEO would be really active is these momentous decisions and yet PV seemed to be almost totally absent and extremely passive in the discussions and didn't even attend some of the (board?) meetings when these legal strategies were discussed.

Given that the Board thought that she wasn't up to the job, they are also equally culpable. Did anyone at the PO not pass the buck?

I do feel sorry for Matthew Lenton.

He's basically the librarian, and suddenly he's found himself the jam in the sandwich between the various sets of lawyers on the one hand, and the people within Fujitsu who know what's actually going on with the daily operation of Horizon on the other.

Well tomorrow and Friday are big days with Andrew Parsons.

If I was Andy, I would just walk in, fall on my sword and announce I'm the biggest dickhead in the world.

I suspect that may not happen.
I think what will happen is Andrew Parsons will try to second guess Jason Beer's line of questioning, get himself flustered and end up contradicting himself.
As well as the usual "I can't recall" and "it wasn't me guv"

I think the core participant lawyers will be very strong on Friday.

He's a partner in law firm, a very hard won position, and so he'll seek to justify or excuse every single thing he's done.

If he owned up to too much, he'd be out of the door and would struggle to get an equivalent position elsewhere.

Presumably AP will have concerns over his PI insurance too? He's not going to want to say anything that might lead to the Wombles being sued for the advice they've given

He's a partner in a shit law firm, find it hard to go anywhere decent from there

Thinking about yesterday, I reckon at some point the PO Board were not only talked into agreeing to seek recusal on the ‘fiduciary duty’ angle, but the non-executive directors (NEDs) might have been told verbally that they might have personal liabilities if they don’t do everything they can to try to prevent losses.

I’ve seen it before, the old ‘vote this way or you NEDs could lose your house’ tactic. NEDs are sometimes not covered for losses the same way that the direct employees are. It’s ridiculously complicated, but NEDs can effectively feel pressured by highly paid directors and legal advisers to loosen up the ropes of challenge.

Nick Wallis is a busy man but did a write up on:
Robinson - https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/de-garr-robinsons-jenkins-problem/
and Grabiner: https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/lord-grabiner-never-mind-the-bollox/

He's also been poking Post Office with a pointed stick:
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/post-office-refuses-to-say-how-much-grabiner-and-neuberger-cost/

Quebeccles · Today 12:34

The longer I watch this, the more monstrous it becomes to realise just how completely doomed the SPMs were. They simply didn’t stand a chance, did they?

Yes, they were faced with an implacable machine, which ground on and on and is only just now grinding to a halt.

Quebeccles · Today 12:34

The longer I watch this, the more monstrous it becomes to realise just how completely doomed the SPMs were. They simply didn’t stand a chance, did they?

Yes, they were faced with an implacable machine, which ground on and on and is only just now grinding to a halt.

Beezer did OK yesterday. I was interested to hear his account of the Lee Castleton case and how Castleton had been offered off-ramps from the insanely high-stakes litigation, but decided to plough on, perhaps pursuing the £250,000 damages award that was, ultimately, illusory. Beezer was able to navigate the tricky waters of the recusal application by simply pointing out the it was being driven by those well above him and he was simply doing his job.

It's not a Jason Beer KC day today but we have Julian Blake KC who is often sharp, and abrasive when presented with lies, see for example his cross-examination of the PR guy.

Andrew Parsons is more of a timid womble than I was expecting.

First indication of Parsons on record covering up a fault in Horizon and after Blake corners him on it, eventually Parsons seeks refuge in a lie, ie he hadn't thought that admission to one subpostmaster would be told to others.

Ahh, so it's going to be lying as a first response when backed into a corner and, if pressed further, to concede the point.

Parsons looks miserable giving this dismal evidence.

He does look wretched, and it’s only just started. He'll be a rag grovelling on the floor by the end of tomorrow.

'I can't recall'. He's brought out the bingo card.

One particular quirk of Blake's cross-examination is the stare at the witness while wearing an expression that I'd describe as "incredulous".

I can't watch it live today, so thank you to you and @Quebeccles for the updates.

I was not expecting him to be timid, or even lie.

It's interesting because his emails are full of such confidence and arrogance.
Maybe its because all the witnesses have been blaming him and maybe he cabt see a way out of this?

This sounds like it's going to be brutal.

"I was working on the basis of the instructions provided to me by [XXX at the Post Office]" is Parson's go-to excuse.

So they started telling people it was only their branches that were affected - or at least, very deliberately not saying other branches were affected - in the letters AP sent out. He was 'only obeying orders' it seems.

It's interesting because his emails are full of such confidence and arrogance.

This is exactly where my comment came from

"I was working on the basis of the instructions provided to me by [XXX at the Post Office]" is Parson's go-to excuse.

I was only obeying orders is not a good excuse.