Paula Vennells was back in Phase 5/6 of the Post Office Inquiry and now we're at Phase 7 - thread 5

[nauticant]

A continuation of this thread about the Post Office Inquiry:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5105378-paula-vennells-is-history-but-now-at-the-post-office-inquiry-is-fujitsu-distinguished-engineer-gareth-jenkins-thread-4

The Inquiry is at Phase 7 which is about how things stand now and looking to the future. Here's the timetable:

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-7-timetable

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

So this is the tea, from Amanda Burton's side.
You ready for this:

Jane Davies was the previous interim chief legal officer.
She wasn't offered a permanent position.
She wrote a letter to POL to take them to Employment Tribunal, with the following allegations:
....Nick Read (CEO) - bullying, discrimination, not dealing with poor performance, getting a bonus he wasnt entitled to.
.... Henry Staunton (chair) - made sexist and racist comments about a senior exec.

Amanda Burton was tasked with investigating this.

According to Amanda, Henry Staunton tried to stop the investigation, on numerous occasions.
Henry Staunton got aggressive if nobody supported him.

Nick Read was cleared. Although maybe there might be a bit of dodgyness. There was a law firm hired to independently investigate the allegations, yet they gathered all the evidence to defend Nick Read for the Employment Tribunal.

Henry Staunton was sacked. Amanda clearly does not like Henry Staunton.

They are back to discussing Nick Reads comment about the "untouchables".- PO staff who were involved in the scandal, but still employed by POL.

Amanda thinks Nick means these members of staff (mainly the investigators) will face no repercussions for what they did.

Burton really didn't want to be drawn into talking about "the untouchables" did she?

Yep. She gave a wishy washy answer, with lots of ums.

She really didn't want to talk about it. And kept saying there are HR policies to deal with it.

If you're now so engaged you carry on into the afternoon session, just bear in mind that once you've seen 10 minutes of Sir Martin Donnelly you've seen the whole afternoon.

Here comes Mr Henry......

Summery of Mr Henry question:
"How did anyone think it was appropriate to enrich (getting bonuses) the POL senior execs for supplying information to the Inquiry - an inquiry that deals with the human misery and pain the Post Offuce caused in the first place"

Amanda Burton answer was a ridiculous. She said everyone was new and nobody realised.

I am going to take your advice and not bother with Sir Martin Donnelly.

I'm knackered and a bit too worked up listening to Amanda Burton testimony. 😁

I've just spotted Jo Hamilton.

I feel better now.

Mr Henry is going in for the kill.

He is bit by bit unraveling how atrocious the bonus the senior execs get for thier work on the inquiry is.

He is highlighting how SPMRs still haven't got compensation/redress, all thier livelihoods gone, relying on food banks, no money.
Yet the senior execs are bitchung and whinging about pay rises and getting crass, outrageous bonuses.

The inquiry is not sitting tomorrow (Monday)

It's back on Tuesday with Henry Staunton the former chair (who took over from Alice Perkins)

Strange thing is, he is only listed for the morning session of Tuesday, I.e not the full day. For me, I have lots of questions, which surely can't be dealt with just in 4 hours?
My questions are:
...1 why didn't he make sure the compensation/redress schemes for the SPMRs were being dealt with correctly and quickly? And getting the full amount they are entitled to?
...2 why isn't POL using thier own profits to pay the SPMR?
...3 why did he allow the senior execs to get bonuses for the inquiry and nip in the bud the whinging about pay rises?
...4 why didn't he sort out how much Fitjitsu are paying towards the compensation schemes?
...5 why did he still allow the investigation /prosecutions into SPMRs based on Horizon data, in 2022, 2023 and 2024?
...6. What did he do about the PO staff who are still employed by POL, and why did he agree with Nick Read that they are "untouchable"?
...7 which Civil Servant told him to slow down paying compensation to the SPMRs? Did this come from Kemi Badenoch?
...8 Did he bully staff? What sexist and racist comments did he make?
...9. Was/is the culture at POL still believe the SPMR are a bunch of thieving crooks?
...10 when the non execs SPMRs, Ismail and Jacobs, wrote complaints about senior execs, why did he forward it to Nick Read? Surely these were serious complaints that required an investigation and meetings, not a forwarded email.

I have many more. I may give Jason Beer a call 😁 (only kidding)

The second session tomorrow is Alisdair Cameron, former Chief Financial Officer of Post Office. This is his second appearance, he previously gave evidence on Friday 17 May 2024.

My version is that his previous evidence was he arrived late in the day, was horrified at what he found, and tried to get the very top people to open their eyes and stop listening to lawyers who for some reason were advising to fight on when it was clear to anyone not brainwashed that the case had already been lost, and lost some time before.

A fuller version is here:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-worried-about-optics-of-employing-more-assertive-lawyers/5119775.article

However, this time round his evidence is more likely to be about his departure earlier this year finally giving in to the CEO trying to get rid of him, Cameron having been on medical leave for some time. In a rather opaque deal apparently he will continue to receive most of his salary for years to come.

I don't remember Alisdar Cameron evidence in Phase 5/6.

Off to o a re-watch it, so I know what his story is.

Just heard on the news that the CEO of Fujitsu UK has apologised for giving incorrect information about the number of times he met Paula Vennells about Horizon. He originally said once and now he's saying 4 times.

Blake is doing the cross-examination today. I wonder if he's now acting as lead counsel and our days of Beer are done

Immediate impressions: Staunton is self-important and pompous. Also seemingly lacks a degree of self-awareness.

I am stuck on a call, so will catch up soon.

I hope our days of Beer are not over.
But, I must confess to a growing crush on Blake. (Sorry to lower the tone 😁)

Remember: when catching up, watching at 1.5x speed is the way to go.

Here we go. Even before starting at Post Office, Staunton was on at the Secretary of State to increase Nick Read's salary because if it wasn't increased from nearly £800,000 there's a risk Read might leave.

Although Staunton is suggesting he was made to send his letter by bad people. It's a variation on the I-was-just-a-letterbox-to-forward-on-for-others explanation we've heard many times before.

He has said a few times, the reason he agreed to become Chair for POL was to "give something back". Like he needed to do something "good" in his life and this was a philanthropic role.

Not sure I believe him, so far.

Those at the top of Post Office wanted to get get rid of the UKGI NED, Tom Cooper, for being too meddlesome. But it isn't clear to me whether this was to get have Cooper replaced by another or to get the UKGI presence off the Board.

Staunton's problem is that he's talking a big game in his evidence but as Blake put to him, these "big I am" claims often aren't reflected in the minutes of Board meetings or correspondence.

Blake is like a dog with a bone over that fact that all of the financial wranglings between Staunton and the government never touched on compensation and redress. It was only about the money Post Office needed as a failing business.

IIRC Staunton made big claims in the press that the government told him to hold back on paying redress on the run-up to the election. Assuming I've got that right, Blake is slowly pulling that apart as being a fabrication stuck on to something factual, but different.

Blake is pointing out that in the key meeting between Staunton and Munby, not only is there no evidence of Munby saying that Post Office must withhold compensation in "hobbling up to the election", but instead Staunton was putting in the work was to increase Read's salary. This is completely undermining the big claims Staunton got into the newspapers in the wake of his sacking.

Also, to echo what I've said a number of times about others, after his glittering business career, he'd ended up as simply Henry Staunton, and becoming Chairman of Post Office would have been his best chance of ending up with a gong, if not a title.

Yes!

So far, all the meeting notes are all about Nick Reads pay rise and bonuses. A little bit about long term strategic planning.

But what sticks out like a shitting dog is, not one mention of the Compensation/Redress Schemes for the SPMRs.

It's very clear what the priorities are.

After having had a break during which Staunton perhaps reflected on what a hole he's in, he's flailing around trying to explain why he could only influence events indirectly. It was a big issue, to be solved by others, and would only be resolved in the longer term.