Reply With QuoteThe inquiry has to finish before the police get involved.Originally Posted by Mouse
My guess is that arrests will follow shortly after.
Repeat the mantra, not remotely a corrupt country , not remotely a corrupt country and add a few GSTK'S for good measure....It won't change the corpocratic operating system, but might give you a smile, a laugh.
The inquiry has to finish before the police get involved.
My guess is that arrests will follow shortly after.
Please define shortly...iirc the Enquiry runs to ´26 at least...arrests before 2030 do you reckon...
Last edited by Passenger; 12th April 2024 at 14:34.
Whilst I welcome an in-depth review it's hard to believe the Police couldn't secure sufficient evidence required to charge the majority of the major guilty parties way quicker if they wanted to. Ridiculous to be waiting until 2026 or later, as some will die, move abroad etc.Please define shortly...
Watched quite a few of these now and its amazing how all the falsely accused have stayed so calm and measured…don't think i would be given the same circumstances especially to some of the explanations they’ve given.
I would like to know how I can get a job where total incompetency and lack of any managerial expertise is a requisite oh yes, and pay millions a year.
I started this thread but am becoming totally bemused and lost for words at the nonsense being spouted by all these so called "execs" and their total lack of any knowledge in running a business.
These postmasters issues were being reported on radio and press way back how can they possibly argue that they didn't have any idea is ridiculous.
I was going to write more but words fail me!!
From this morning's testimony:
Sir Win Williams: Anyway, so let me carry on. There came a point in time when the very experienced barrister who was acting for the Post Office told the experienced solicitor who'd instructed him, who in turn told the Legal Department of the Post Office, that the costs involved in this case were grossly out of proportion to what you were trying to get from Mr Castleton and they ought to think seriously about whether it was worth spending all that money, all right?
But, in the end, all that money was spent so that the total amount of the debt and the costs came to well over £300,000.
Alan Cook: Yeah.
Sir Win Williams: Well, what I want to ask you about is what was the process, back in 2006, for authorising the expenditure of those sums of money in the Post Office?
Alan Cook: Yeah, and that was what I was about to prematurely talk about. I mean, there's an irony, isn't it, that, if somebody in the organisation wanted to buy a piece of equipment, they'd probably have to get umpteen forms signed in order to be able to spend the money and yet, somehow or other, these spend decisions were being made in that prosecution, and there should have been a set of delegated authorities that said, "You're authorised to spend up to this much money", and because one of the issues is a case starts off -- as you've explained, a case start off modest and becomes big, so not only should they require sign-off from an expenditure perspective, there should be a cap on how far it can go without coming back and asking for more.
Clearly, that was not in place and -- and it certainly -- they certainly did not come to me for approval. So we had delegated authorities in place that would allow people below me, and this would have probably lied with -- Paula Vennells as the Network Director, would have been able to sign that off.
Sir Win Williams: Right. So what it amounts to is that there would have been a person within the Post Office organisation who would have had authority to sign off --
Alan Cook: Correct --
Sir Win Williams: -- spending the money without taking it either to you or to the Board --
Alan Cook: Correct.
Sir Win Williams: -- and so did you tell me that most likely person was Paula Vennells?
Alan Cook: Yes, I think so.
Sir Win Williams: All right. Thank you very much.
Alan Cook: Of the legal function would have thought approval from the business and the business in this case would have been the person that ran the branches.
Sir Win Williams: All right. Thank you.
The PO was trying to recover £25k! I think Sir Wyn may have a few awkward question for Paula...
There are 2 questions I really struggle with
During the court case did any of the defence lawyers not think that it could be the software? What was their defence? They must have thought, if I didn't steal the money how else could it go missing?
Also did the CPS not think, got a lot of postmasters in court this week, more than usually, could there be another reason for this?
Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Lawyers also have a lot to answer for (probably for the defence too in those early days, but then again they were up against the malicious, deceitful, might of the PO)
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/analysis-post-office-scandal-not-over-yet
Relevant excerpt below -
Requests for information about the reliability of Horizon by subpostmasters facing criminal prosecution were denied by Post Office lawyers. Evidence that should have been disclosed in criminal proceedings was not disclosed.
Unable to get evidence to help them, subpostmasters were often advised by their own lawyers to plead guilty to lesser charges (such as, false accounting rather than theft) to escape a prison sentence.
She will cascade it down somehow. I hope not and that the evidence implicates her but I suspect not. Eventually, in 2030, someone on her team will take the fall and much gloating of justice served will be made. It’s an embarrassment to us all. The point of being a director is control and ultimate responsibility. Ignorance, where it exposes your own incompetence, perhaps by not asking the questions that you are literally paid huge sums to ask, should be no defence.
If this wasn’t such a tragedy for the victims it would be an utter joke.
All these highly paid senior executives squirming and passing the buck … if they walk it will be a disgrace.
I suspect they will try and shift it down the line until they get to some poor middle manager …
This above is it in a nutshell. Paid a fortune for their level of responsibility, but somehow never responsible. Yet another case of deputy heads will roll. I hope to be proven wrong in this case.
Do we know who recommended Venal for the CBE?
It's a secret.
The information that you have requested regarding those who nominated and awarded Paula Vennells her CBE is being withheld under section 37(1)(b), section 40(2), and section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
FOI request.
If you have nothing to hide...
That only seems to apply to us and not government.
I see that is a secret. Again, how convenient. She’s not even the head of the snake. The two last week were so keen to deny knowledge. It makes you wonder where incompetence and arse covering intersect?
I’m still angry at the prosecutions themselves. That lot claimed just following orders etc. The teams that went in, closed the shops, took the kit away and relentlessly pursued the sub postmasters. Did they never once, in all those years, wonder why an epidemic of thievery broke out? Surely they had team meetings? The odd coffee break, car journey, office birthday lunch whatever and someone speculated.
Even now, when we are almost certain it’s a cover up that got wildly out of control beyond a point of no return for some of them, it’s amazing no one who knew or suspected went round or above those doing the covering up! The place is too large for gossip not to have happened.
Like you, I hold out hope for a smoking gun somehow. Just a one liner in board meeting minutes, an email or whatever. Something new found. It’d be delicious to watch them whip that out live on TV and see it implicate one or more of these big wigs.
Squirm................
Ex-plod, forgetting that he was in the police for 7yrs, and not really standing up well to questioning.
I'm now on part 2 of the coverage................... He's a slippery one !!!
Last edited by blackal; 16th April 2024 at 10:02.
Is anyone watching the inquiry live atm? The sound seems to have gone very 'buzzy'.........don't think it's my PC.
There's a slight amount of background noise, but I can hear everything quite clearly. Mind you, "I can't recall" isn't exactly hard to miss! Can any of these people remember anything?
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
The sound seems to have been fixed now :)
Yeah, lots of 'can't remember' going on this morning. I don't feel that D Miller is impressing anyone.
<that said, I can't remember what I did yesterday, so posing questions to people about what happened 10-20 years ago is a big ask>
I am loving watching these inquiry lawyers at work I must say. So calm. And the way they leave pauses to give the interviewees time to hang themselves - sublime.
Last edited by Mouse; 16th April 2024 at 12:23.
Yes, our Mr Miller seems to be admitting he failed in quite a number of instances. How do these people get such senior positions?
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
It seems a lot like football management, you can fail badly like such as Mourinho and still pick up £15,000,000 + it seems good at the top were ever you are :)
More and more PO subterfuge..................
PO investigator Jon Longman is one heck of a squirmy dude (I'm being very polite). Ducking and diving around everything. Totally out of his depth and was ripped to shreds in the end.
Man, every day it just gets worse!
Last edited by Mouse; 17th April 2024 at 14:42.
Rodric Williams today.
OMFG .......... it's a frickin clown show
XLink
It's actually painful to watch the questioning of R Williams. He's being mentally put through the ringer, though I'm not sure if he realises how bad it all looks for him. His demeanour is all over the shop.
On the basis of what I'm watching, how he ever became a senior lawyer is beyond me. And, unbelievably, he still holds such a post at the PO
He's scheduled for two days......he'll probably need rehab afterwards :/
I'm in two mind over Mr Williams. To me, he presents as someone who has, to an extent, overcome an autism spectrum disorder to achieve his present position. I suspect that he retains that position because of the lack of other candidates and the lack of strength elsewhere in his employer, eg in management. That is, you gets what you pay for etc. He is pedantic (surely a good trait in a litigator) and hampered by a lack of a more general appreciation of matters outside of his remit. (Eg His interpretation of "a straight bat" is honesty rather than blocking or defensive...whether this is personal or NZ usage is unclear.)
His recall is better than many that have appeared before the inquiry and his ability is has been demonstrated by his reference to and use of the evidence material. His idiosyncrasies are coming to light...and, in some cases, annoying the questioning Counsel. However he appears genuinely to be putting in the effort to answer all that is put to him.
In summary, I am coming to the opinion that his intelligence got him to the point where he was qualified and useful to his employer while his lack of empathy/understanding with complainants etc served his management well.
I may be wrong...
^^^ Valid commentary yes.
Funnily enough, I found his understanding of the term 'straight bat', to be exactly the same as mine i.e., 'to be honest'. I therefore had no issue with that.
Obviously, he had the intelligence to become a solicitor/lawyer. But, that's as much credit as I can give him re his role. He seems most inept to me - being qualified on paper often not meaning that it translates to being good at the job. For instance, his numerous loose and casual comments in emails do not relect well on any professional abilities.
His thought processes are also incredibly imprecise and follow tortuous routes. He is hard to follow. Not a good trait for a lawyer.
Her also needs to stop grinning, smiling or laughing when answering questions. I can only imagine how this 'performance' is being received by the SPMs and their counsel.
We will see how it goes this afternoon and tomorrow. Doesn't look good for him though in the grand scheme of things.
Last edited by Mouse; 18th April 2024 at 14:40.
According to Collins your (and his) usage is old-fashioned...but no less valid, IMO. Their current usage being "to try to avoid answering difficult questions".
His thought processes may indeed be tortuous but, to my mind, seem to be an attempt to cover all the bases. I think that is a good trait for a lawyer. Where he failed was in his appreciation of / support for the other side's needs...and I think that is something that is bred / trained into lawyers. Their duty is to best represent their client / employer rather than seek out any other detail...that being the purpose of the Court / Tribunal or other proceeding. Is this not usual in an adversarial justice system?
As a civil case lawyer he seems to have juggled the demands that POL put on him as regards criminal cases, pressure from the press, etc rather well...as far as his employer might be concerned. Their interest was not concerned with the well-being of their SPMs, as is all too apparent.
I am old yep, but not necessarily 'fashioned' lol
The inquiry process will be an incredibly stressful ordeal for the interviewees. Some are coping with it better than others. This guy, imo, is not handling it so well. Also, I just find his 'way' to be at odds with what I'd expect from a legal professional. Let us not forget that he occupied/s a very senior position at the PO (legal civil). I can easily imagine all of the inquiry lawyers I've seen performing such a role, but not R Williams. Anyway, we can agree to disagree on that.
Agreed, each side is going to do their utmost to win. That's fine, from a legal perspective if not a moral one, as long as all the formalities are followed correctly (disclosure for example).
Also, I think we agree? - all of what has happened seems indicative of very deep, systemic, failings (at numerous levels) on behalf of the PO, and wider RM group and indeed govt levels. It's a huge organisation and nothing is perfect, but whatever structures and ethos that have been put in place by chairs or directors is not as good as they thought it was.
There were/are some massive things to consider. The insolvency of the whole group/PO (I read that at one point there was even talk of selling the RM off to the Dutch!) and the need to maintain a public service. A computer system that had cost a lot of public money and yet was faulty. Seemed easier (cheaper?) to railroad prosecutions rather than seek the truth, admit that the system was flawed and be held accountable........I guess that stance worked for a while but unfortunately it has now all come back to bite the PO in the backside.
I know one thing. I'd hate to be the person responsible for compiling the findings for this inquiry. Presumably it'll be done by commitee as there is, imo, way too much for one person to assimilate.
He didn’t present well as a witness to my eyes. Got tucked up by his own lawyer’s email in a bit I saw. He was so all over email generally it felt off that he was deadly silent on the one email that invited itself not to be replied to…
Another good example of him seeing all sides too. He at least has some awareness of how it looks! How it was IMO.
I thought he was a disgrace. I don’t know how he can continue in his job or as a lawyer.
He’s not the first PO lawyer to appear. Singh’s (a conveyancer in a criminal law role) testimony was memorable and he’ll be back. I wouldn’t think the PO is an employer of choice and it has to scrape the barrel of the legal profession to find in-house lawyers.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rodric Williams is coming apart at today's session. Counsel has realised that he needs to ask very narrow, specific questions in order not to allow him to give a more general, perhaps evasive answers. This has led to several instances of "I don't recall" and "I don't know". It seems apparent that, in the light of specific advice, RW failed to take action to remedy POL's deficiencies in disclosure. There may be more to come...
Big time. And wait until the SPMs solicitors get their chance at the end. I suspect it won't be pretty.
Indeed, it's not pretty...eg "I suggest you are lying".
I don’t think he will enjoy his lunch break, realising he still has further questions to come!
Crumbs. I desperately needed the lunch break and I'm only watching! It's like a train wreck happening in front of your eyes.
Last edited by Mouse; 19th April 2024 at 13:03.
The degree of coverup is quite incredible! If this were a TV drama it would be so far fetched as to be unreal. Goodness only knows what it will be like when Venells gets her turn.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Can't wait.
She’ll be sick, mental stress, whatever. Can’t see her taking a seat to be exposed. I’d love to be wrong and watch her squirm.
Where are you watching it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BBC web site
Tues > Friday
Usually starts 9-10 ish am
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry...nd-6-timetable
Last edited by Mouse; 19th April 2024 at 20:27.
Thank you, will enjoy it in the background when working.
May be taking more attention than it should though.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yep, it's very engrossing!
I have been following it.
Taking a step back, it seems very clear to me that none of these senior PO leaders have any real defence.
They were all fully aware that there were many prosecutions going on. They were also aware on some level that there were some question marks over the Horizon system.
They should have needed nothing more than that to call a halt to the prosecutions and instigate a full independent review.
These people had the power to stop these prosecutions going forward- instantly. But they didn’t. None of them stood up and said “stop!”.
That is utterly unforgivable and why they need to be held to account and prosecuted themselves. It is about justice and the public interest, and sending a very clear message to other organisations that might be tempted to abuse their powers and destroy lives.
So clever my foot fell off.
The lot of them are culpable, including all the legal team and contracted lawyers.
And - don't start me on John Scott, head of security at PO. Tried to hide that he had been in the police and a detective at one stage. Can't remember anything and the best he can do is "I would have .............." Not describing his actions, just what he was meant to do - while making it 'sound' like he did.
By his own testimony -he doesn't appear to have done the thick end of fuck-all in his years in the PO in that top position.
I hope he is prosecuted successfully along with the rest of them.
Big week ahead: Susan Crichton, Chris Aujard and Angela van den Bogerd.
Crichton and Aujard, the most senior lawyers at the PO. The inquiry/SPM lawyer vs. PO lawyer sessions are fascinating.
van den Bogerd was Vennells’ sidekick.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
For another opinion on proceedings, try The Law Society Gazette.
From 5 February 2024:
Lawyers hauled before the Post Office Inquiry have been lambasted as part of victims’ summing up of the handling of Horizon fraud prosecutions.
In the latest phase of the public inquiry, representatives of sub-postmasters took turns to criticise the conduct of external and in-house lawyers who worked on their convictions.
Sam Stein KC, instructed by Howe & Co representing more than 200 sub-postmasters, said the evidence had ‘pulled back the curtain on the decades of the Great Post Office Cook-Up and Cover-Up’.He said there had been an ‘appalling lack of professionalism’ among lawyers and a refusal to investigate the Horizon system because of what it would reveal.
Stein referred to Mandy Talbot, an in-house lawyer, as the ‘Post Office’s very own ”evil robot”, saying that she was supposed to be responsible for civil actions but ‘deliberately inserted herself in the wider dealings with Horizon cases’...
Or their take on Rodric Williams.
Well, today's 'episode' is becoming quite revealing and the credibility of Susan Crichton is there for all to see. Selective memory overdrive! How do these people get such senior positions in companies? Let's change the word 'bug' to something less emotive and, more importantly, critical!
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Posting Permissions