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

He’s now being asked about whether he advised that minutes should not be circulated. This would mean information would not be publicly disclosable. It fits in with the Cartwright King 'shredding' advice. He’s being asked whether he advised 'not to keep a paper trail'. AP denies this (unsurprisingly).

Whoops. Here comes an email in which he tells Susan Crichton 'not to leave a paper trail'.

Here comes an email in which he tells Susan Crichton 'not to leave a paper trail'.

Which of course, Vennells, Perkins and 'the PR guy' all took to heart and complied with.

Ouchy ouch ouch on Parsons denying in his witness statement that he doesn't use the word "produced" and then Blake taking him to document after document where Parsons cheerfully used the the word again and again.

This is quite funny 😂

Parsons felt he had no choice but to continue lying because otherwise he'd be acknowledging that his witness statement contains a dishonest explanation.

Lying doesn't seem to bother him all much.

He's risibly bad, isn't he?

Did it not occur to him that if the Minutes were inaccurate he should have drawn attention to the fact and offered a correction? (Well, I am pretty sure it did, he's just having trouble talking his way out of this.)

Parsons hasn't yet tried indignation or "But I'm a Good Person".

I wonder if that will come later, or whether he can keep up this cold, bloodless lying all day.

So far this dance has been to establish that Parsons is willing to mislead people in the letters he wrote, and in his witness statement, and in his evidence, if it suits his interests and/or those of Post Office's, that he'd bought into the aim of maintaining the line of the integrity of Horizon and was pushing it, and that his firm's response to the emergence of miscarriages of justice was that responding to this aspect, the criminal, needed to be in alignment with what was happening in relation to issues on the civil side. ie the (money) tail wagging the (victims) dog.

Doesn't seem in any way ashamed about being caught out like that. Just totally brazening it out.

Parsons will insist on quibbling with stuff to avoid making a straightforward admission and then have counsel wave documents in his face, often written by Parsons, to wring a more frank admission out of him. He isn't learning.

He's very precise in his use of language isn't he!

Parsons decided on a line of "Bond Dickinson was only a conduit" on Brian Altman's role giving advice and Blake is just tearing this into shreds showing Parsons as someone who cannot tell the truth.

If you're wondering why Parsons is willing to destroy his credibility in this point, it's because he's desperate to hold the line that Bond Dickinson only advised on the civil side and there's no reason to see them as having operated with respect to the criminal aspects at all.

I’m really behind and still watching AP.

if she says “I find it extraordinary that no-one told me about x,y,z” I will throw something.

it must have been very evident that PV was just passing on messages in the board meetings. PV clearly had no depth of understanding of the issues so even a minimal amount of questioning would have revealed her ignorance.

please tell me how you get a £0.5M job just to be a messenger!

why did AP at no point have a discussion with the HR Director about PV’s performance. Amongst many other questions

AP's really going for the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin approach. What is a conduit? What is advice? What is a view? Why are we here? Who am I?

I'm trapped indoors when I should be overground wombling free!

😂😂😂😂

Why did they all think Gareth Jenkins was 'Dr'?

If you're wondering why Parsons is willing to destroy his credibility in this point, it's because he's desperate to hold the line that Bond Dickinson only advised on the civil side and there's no reason to see them as having operated with respect to the criminal aspects at all.

That's really interesting @nauticant

Would I be right in assuming that Andy realises he's in a bit of trouble?
But his strategy is that it is better for his career, to fall on his sword with the Civil cases, and maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist.

Whereas, if he in anyway concedes to his failures with the criminal cases, this could result in serious, if not, criminal consequences for him?

I.e it's better to accept your failures on the lesser of the two evils?

Usually a heavy-duty expert witness giving critical technical evidence would be Dr and it seems someone made a mistaken assumption that many others then picked up.

Watching with increasing expletives shouted at the screen . Oh my ….
FLT’s the lot of them .

I'd say that he's desperate to shield the firm minou123 because if he exposes them to resultant regulatory/legal action he's definitely toast but if he looks very bad himself, he might be able to weasel his way out of the mess, damaged, but still in position.

"so that's your answer" - Sir Wyn is not impressed