Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells

[toontra]

How has the evidence exposed that greed motivated these two individuals?

I don't believe that incompetence alone sufficiently explains what happened. Therefore -

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

That's your deduction based on your dissatisfaction with the evidence.

Indeed.

[Psamathe]

I assume those Post Office employees as well as ex-exployees have been having legal advice and even representation for their testimony. Anybody know who is paying for that legal advice? 'cos if it's the Post Office I understand the reality is that that means it's actually the shareholder which means us.

What is the position regarding this aspect?

Ian

[toontra]

ETA
For completeness, let me say I was disappointed with the line of questioning that presented the either/or of 'Either you're lying through your teeth or you are incompetent - which is it?'

I thought it was unhelpful and seemed to me to be motivated by posturing, rather than seeking to get to the truth of the matter, which I expect is rather less clear-cut than this.

Again I disagree. This came from a barrister representing one of the victims rather than the enquiry team (whose questioning is more academic and forensic, some would say "dry"). He is perfectly within his right to express in the strongest terms the outrage of his client.

The question you refer to actually did illicit the admission of "gross incompetence" from Millar so it achieved its aim. Are you suggesting the witnesses should be treated more gently than the (innocent) victims of this obscenity when they faced the full force of the Post Office and its legal team?

I think the combination of "good barrister/bad barrister" is working well. Both styles get results in different ways.

[Bonefishblues]

ETA
For completeness, let me say I was disappointed with the line of questioning that presented the either/or of 'Either you're lying through your teeth or you are incompetent - which is it?'

I thought it was unhelpful and seemed to me to be motivated by posturing, rather than seeking to get to the truth of the matter, which I expect is rather less clear-cut than this.

Again I disagree. This came from a barrister representing one of the victims rather than the enquiry team (whose questioning is more academic and forensic, some would say "dry"). He is perfectly within his right to express in the strongest terms the outrage of his client.

The question you refer to actually did illicit the admission of "gross incompetence" from Millar so it achieved its aim. Are you suggesting the witnesses should be treated more gently than the (innocent) victims of this obscenity when they faced the full force of the Post Office and its legal team?

I said [as you quoted, but worth me repeating as I don't think my message was understood] that I thought it was unhelpful in the search for the truth, and that it was more around posturing - now if that's important to a victim who is paying his wages, all good, happy days, fill your boots and explain what a bad man he is.
Getting to the truth is, however what the Inquiry is all about. Yes his question did illicit[sic] the admission - because he only gave two options in his question of course, but what value was this when the truth is so much more complex?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'being gentle' or otherwise. Oftentimes the most probing and productive questions are those asked seemingly naively, as opposed to the confrontational ones.

[toontra]

Yes his question did illicit the admission - because he only gave two options in his question of course, but what value was this when the truth is so much more complex?

Wrong. To that question he could have replied "neither" (which admittedly would have been difficult give the damning evidence).

In any case it's for the chair of the enquiry to decide if lines of questioning are appropriate. He has a lot more experience of these things than you or I. I'm certain he'd step in if he thought things were getting ugly.

[Bonefishblues]

Yes his question did illicit[sic] the admission - because he only gave two options in his question of course, but what value was this when the truth is so much more complex?

Wrong. To that question he could have replied "neither" (which admittedly would have been difficult give the damning evidence).

In any case it's for the chair of the enquiry to decide if lines of questioning are appropriate. He has a lot more experience of these things than you or I. I'm certain he'd step in if he thought things were getting ugly.

Please don't edit my posts, especially where I am quoting you, especially if you are seeking to elicit a response

[toontra]

Yes his question did illicit[sic] the admission - because he only gave two options in his question of course, but what value was this when the truth is so much more complex?

Wrong. To that question he could have replied "neither" (which admittedly would have been difficult give the damning evidence).

In any case it's for the chair of the enquiry to decide if lines of questioning are appropriate. He has a lot more experience of these things than you or I. I'm certain he'd step in if he thought things were getting ugly.

Please don't edit my posts, especially where I am quoting you, especially if you are seeking to elicit a response

Edited for pedantry

[Bonefishblues]

Wrong. To that question he could have replied "neither" (which admittedly would have been difficult give the damning evidence).

In any case it's for the chair of the enquiry to decide if lines of questioning are appropriate. He has a lot more experience of these things than you or I. I'm certain he'd step in if he thought things were getting ugly.

Please don't edit my posts, especially where I am quoting you, especially if you are seeking to elicit a response

Edited for pedantry

Or as you would say. Wrong.

[toontra]

This is increasingly outrageous. The chief PO lawyer in charge of litigation against sub-postmasters is giving evidence for the second day. It's already been established that:

He wasn't qualified in criminal law - he repeatedly withheld vital disclosure evidence to defence lawyers - he lied to journalists about the ability of Fujitsu to access Horizon remotely - etc, etc

The usual heap of forgetfulness, usually around clear evidence of misconduct. Annoyingly he insists on looking at hard-copy exhibits instead of looking at the same screens as everyone else in the enquiry - thus slowing the whole thing down while he fumbles around with huge ring binders. He repeatedly asks for questions to be repeated, sometimes multiple times. It's almost as if he wanted to reduce the time allowed for questioning.

He blusters, bumbles, stutters (not a speech defect) and waves his arms around.

But the truly shocking thing is - he's still employed by the Post Office and is actually part of the team dealing with compensation claims. No conflict of interest there, then. He should instead be put before a court himself for criminal malpractice.

[briansnail]

Simon Jeffries chairs the Board of St James Place International plc, and is Chair of the Audit and Risk Committees of Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust plc, a listed Danish financial services software company, and the Crown Prosecution Service.
- extract Post Office.

Mr Jeffries joined the Post Office in Mar 2023.He was not involved in any way with the scandal.He normally would be a good choice.However with the posts above one asks if they will be any conflict of interest,
*******************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

[Bonefishblues]

Just saw this on another forum...

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/pennys-printouts/

[toontra]

Hah - shifting sands! Van den Bogerd has spent the first 10 minutes of her questioning to make several changes to her sworn witness statements previously submitted to the enquiry.

Any detective will tell you that when a suspect changes their story to fit new evidence (as already presented to the enquiry but post her written witness statements) it's generally a sign of culpability.

[Bonefishblues]

That has already happened several times with other witnesses.

[mattheus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c84z0lk0019o

ITV made a loss of about £1m on its agenda-setting drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office, despite it being the UK's most-watched TV show of the year so far, the broadcaster has revealed.

It sparked an outcry and led to plans for new legislation to clear their names.

The series has been watched by 13.5 million people to date.

But Kevin Lygo, ITV's managing director of media and entertainment, said: "Mr Bates has made a loss of something like £1m and we can't continually do this."

Broadcasters are facing big financial pressures, and often rely on overseas channels or streamers buying the rights to show a programme to help recoup its budget.

Last month, ITV said 12 foreign broadcasters had bought the Mr Bates drama. But Mr Lygo said it wasn't sufficiently appealing to foreign viewers to break even.


"If you're in Lithuania, four hours on the British Post Office? Not really, thank you very much. So you can see the challenges here."

n.b. I've heavily edited the above!

[toontra]

I've discovered that watching the enquiry stream while doing long and hilly indoor trainer sessions (in place of the usual motivational music) works really well. The resulting anger really fuels me up the Alpine cols.

It's the same old story. It's not the original crime that's the big issue - it's the cover-up. In this case - lies upon lies that continued for decades with almost everyone in senior management complicit to a greater or lesser extent. All of this playing out while sub postmasters were suffering.

I still hold with my theory that, for want of any other rational explanation, it was about people preserving their jobs, reputations and, by inference, their salaries (plus bonuses for "performance").