Cycling UK Forum

That's more nuanced than simply 'pure greed' which is what you ascribed their behaviour to last week.

Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Apr 2024, 7:45pm That's more nuanced than simply 'pure greed' which is what you ascribed their behaviour to last week.

Anything to say on the issues rather than niggling on semantics or auto-correct errors?

toontra wrote: 25 Apr 2024, 7:49pm

Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Apr 2024, 7:45pm That's more nuanced than simply 'pure greed' which is what you ascribed their behaviour to last week.

Anything to say on the issues rather than niggling on semantics or auto-correct errors?

Something of this scale over so many years is not susceptible to a simple diagnosis. It's a toxic combination of poor culture, ineffective leadership, fear (cf Chrichton being hounded out after challenging the group speak), lack of individual professional competence and sheer buttock-covering (I'm sure I can think of others) My view is based on the evidence I have heard at the Inquiry and previously. Angela vdB's evidence today was wholly unconvincing, being peppered with inconsistencies, a remarkable degree of forgetfulness where appropriate, and testimony which was frankly incredible. I hope she gets the opportunity to make her case to a Jury in due course.

Just to say that changing someone's quote in a reply is unacceptable, which is why I called it out.

The big take-away remains the awkward truth that our society has been hijacked by neoliberal ideologies to the extent that high profile revelations like Horizon & Grenfell Tower will have no consequence. We hear the glib, meaningless phrase "Lessons will be learnt." so often we don't even bother to wonder when and how that will come about.
Nobody will suffer any real consequence from the PO debacle. Likewise, the many other serious cover-ups. It's situation normal, carry on as usual chaps and no need to worry if you do get caught... keep chasing those eye-watering "remuneration packages", keep the shareholders happy with short term profits and everyone will be happy!!

I am very impressed with the forensic nature of the Inquiry, notwithstanding my earlier comments about Mr Stein's grandstanding. I think that unlike some others (Inquiries, that is) the truth is being exposed. I also think that there's enormous public feeling in favour of criminal sanctions in this case. In short, I'm optimistic.

Just came across this by George Orwell, which resonates with what we've been hearing from multiple witnesses about the PO's use of language to mask their deceit (e.g. "anomalies" instead of "bugs"):

"The defence of the indefensible is rarely attempted without recourse to euphemism and cloudy vagueness."

I'm beginning to wonder who are the bigger villains in all this - Vennells and the rest of the Post Office Board, or the Post Office's in-house and external lawyers.

The cover up from 2013 on only happened because the lawyers appear to have collectively connived at developing and following a strategy whereby they downplayed and suppressed the significance of the Clarke Advice, including in what they told Vennells/the Board.

There's no single controlling hand here, which is why I keep coming back to the toxic culture of the business. Vennells had the opportunity to blow the whistle when she came in. She didn't, she just slotted into the prevailing group speak - why/how?

Presumably prior to July 2013, Vennells largely accepted what she was told and continued to follow the line already established under her predecessors.

As I understand it, it was the Clarke Advice that should have made it impossible to continue with that approach. It was clearly and deliberately written in blunt stark terms to warn the Post Office and its Board and lawyers that at least some convictions were unsafe and that they were legally required to act on that. The second advice warned them that shredding minutes of meetings of the weekly 'hub', which was set up to act on the first advice, would potentially be perverting the course of justice. Simon Clarke even included a warning in the second advice that if the Post Office sought later to maintain in court that it had received advice other than what the second advice actually said*, the second advice would no longer be legally privileged, and would itself then have to be disclosed.

Did Vennells and the rest of the Board see the Clarke Advice?

* Edited for clarity.

slowster wrote: 26 Apr 2024, 10:51am I'm beginning to wonder who are the bigger villains in all this - Vennells and the rest of the Post Office Board, or the Post Office's in-house and external lawyers.

Rodric Williams certainly played a key part in wrongful prosecutions. He was directly accused of lying under oath when giving his evidence to the enquiry. He didn't reply, but looked in panic at the chairman (who he presumably hoped would come to his rescue - he didn't).

Not sure about the criminality involved but lying under oath ain't a good look for a lawyer.

slowster wrote: 26 Apr 2024, 10:51am I'm beginning to wonder who are the bigger villains in all this - Vennells and the rest of the Post Office Board, or the Post Office's in-house and external lawyers.

The cover up from 2013 on only happened because the lawyers appear to have collectively connived at developing and following a strategy whereby they downplayed and suppressed the significance of the Clarke Advice, including in what they told Vennells/the Board.

I think they can all be. eg the Hatton Garden Job probably one person had the initial idea and that does not make other participants innocent. Others build on the original idea, overcome hurdles and fix aspects that wouldn't work, quality plans, provide support, etc.

Similarly, I've always thought (maybe incorrectly) that even if you didn't participate directly in the offence you are aware of, if you them lie about what happened, withhold evidence, etc. you are also breaking laws.

Ian

From what I've seen of the inquiry I agree with what others have said about it being thorough, etc.

But also, to me it has become very clear that employees of and agents engaged by the Post Office have very likely committed offences. And, to me it seems that some of those likely guilty of offences are hiding behind the inquiry, delaying, refusing scrutiny (maybe enjoying what they guess might be a bit longer free prior to courts and prison).

From the perspective of punishment of the perpetrators the inquiry seems to be delaying things. I can see the inquiry is helping identify more guilty parties but seems that some should already be in court and attending the inquiry over video link from a prison cell. I can't quite understand why some individuals are not already facing a jury or serving a sentence.

Ian

Anyone who's particularly interested in how these dreadful & disingenuous hypocrites get away with their ghastly behaviour - and what we can do about them, could do worse than read this book, due out next month...
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/455534/ ... 0241635902

Psamathe wrote: 26 Apr 2024, 12:19pm

slowster wrote: 26 Apr 2024, 10:51am I'm beginning to wonder who are the bigger villains in all this - Vennells and the rest of the Post Office Board, or the Post Office's in-house and external lawyers.

The cover up from 2013 on only happened because the lawyers appear to have collectively connived at developing and following a strategy whereby they downplayed and suppressed the significance of the Clarke Advice, including in what they told Vennells/the Board.

I think they can all be. eg the Hatton Garden Job probably one person had the initial idea and that does not make other participants innocent. Others build on the original idea, overcome hurdles and fix aspects that wouldn't work, quality plans, provide support, etc.

Similarly, I've always thought (maybe incorrectly) that even if you didn't participate directly in the offence you are aware of, if you them lie about what happened, withhold evidence, etc. you are also breaking laws.

Ian

I'm not even sure it was that tbh - in a heist someone comes up with the first idea to rob X. Here it's seemingly been a little lie or a blind eye (perhaps not even consciously that, maybe even told in good faith) in the early days to maintain the programme momentum and not divert it. It's grown and grown after that as more people got on the band waggon, prosecutions started, and everyone became drawn in.

What's abundantly clear is that there were several 'break points' where it should have been halted, but nobody did. Why not is what interests me, in organisational & behavioural terms.

ETA
And having seen the last 30 mins of the morning session, sheer human wickedness and lack of integrity was allowed, even encouraged to prosper, because it suited the PO. in its attempt to present the indefensible as truth.

Psamathe wrote: 26 Apr 2024, 12:26pm From what I've seen of the inquiry I agree with what others have said about it being thorough, etc.

But also, to me it has become very clear that employees of and agents engaged by the Post Office have very likely committed offences. And, to me it seems that some of those likely guilty of offences are hiding behind the inquiry, delaying, refusing scrutiny (maybe enjoying what they guess might be a bit longer free prior to courts and prison).

From the perspective of punishment of the perpetrators the inquiry seems to be delaying things. I can see the inquiry is helping identify more guilty parties but seems that some should already be in court and attending the inquiry over video link from a prison cell. I can't quite understand why some individuals are not already facing a jury or serving a sentence.

Ian

I'm also less than clear on why - but this is without doubt a very evidence-rich seam being mined. It has been made clear that these proceedings are completely independent of any police action.