Reply With QuoteIf I've heard "As I recall" and "To the best of my recollection" from Susan Crichton once today, I've heard it a dozen or more. Cautious doesn't quite cover it.
I've not really been paying too much attention to it this morning.........but the alternative 'wording' email piqued my interest a lot. With every witness that stands we can see more and more evidence of the corporate cover up.
If I've heard "As I recall" and "To the best of my recollection" from Susan Crichton once today, I've heard it a dozen or more. Cautious doesn't quite cover it.
Yes, and as she was clearly 'hung out to dry' by Vannells at a board meeting she was supposed to have attended but wasn't called, (due to her being hung out to dry in that meeting), it makes no sense that she doesn't come clean about what was going on and who knew what/when! Maybe now that is out in the open she'll be more forthright this afternoon?Originally Posted by PickleB
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Skewered by the inquiry lawyers several times, including on the matter of Orwellian language, not mitigating or excusing her responsibility, but clearly thrown under the bus by Vennells and Perkins (one-down from a dame, Mrs Jack Straw, Will Remain-Failure Straw's mum). Vennells and Perkins took a real pasting this afters so their personal appearances should be worth checking in on. Seem a thoroughly nasty pair, their notes to file were revealing.
Last edited by BillyCasper; 23rd April 2024 at 20:12.
It seems the lawyer has thrown Venells straight under the bus
There's a big hole being dug for Venells. Tomorrow we see her buddy Angela up, that should be interesting.
What did you take as highlights? I’m gonna have to watch. I assume he knew, did nothing in his two years (as instructed by Venells?). So he says I guess. It’s hotting up.
Had it on in the background whilst working, but what a day!
I feel that I am missing something. Why did POL only employ lawyers with experience in civil law? So far at this has been the case for at least two of those called to give evidence, albeit that they were using outside legal firms (chambers?) to lead the prosecutions.
I think before separation the criminal lawyers were in RM Group. After separation POL had at least Singh and Wilson in criminal roles. Whether they were competent or not is another matter. Singh’s reputation took another battering today. He appeared in an earlier hearing and is an absolute buffoon.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A slight aside, but this is very illuminating. A worker's experience of Royal Mail decline since privatisation:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-falling-apart
I think it was becoming clear to all that it was a mess, but crikey!
So clever my foot fell off.
That's a grim read. They are struggling to recruit posties up here. Many try it but a hell of a lot fail. The turnover is supposed to be high.
A package arrived in a jiffy bag two days ago. The package had been opened and the sharpening strop removed. A rare event indeed thankfully.
Yesterday's episode was very interesting and paved the way for PV's episode next week, (if she turns up). Hopefully today will be even more interesting and add to it.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Sorry, that's alright then, lying cow, if she doesn't get prosecuted!!
Half a day in and she looks like she’s had enough. I felt he demonstrated she was complicit in the remote access cover up from what I saw. She obvs can’t recall much. Conveniently. Except a party line on wording which didn’t seem to exist apart from in her head.
She’s coming across as the most unaccomplished liar so far!
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
To my mind, AvdB spent the latter part of this morning attempting to refute Counsel's suggestion that he may have perjured herself before the High Court. She seemed to say that she didn't because she didn't fully understand, realise the import of, take cognisance of, etc emails she received flagging up bugs with the Horizon system before she admits to knowing about them.
Unfortunately, the proof of perjury requires the prosecution to show that the defendant:
- wilfully making a material statement which is false; and
- knew that it is false or did not believie it to be true.
...and that state of mind may be difficult to demonstrate.
Does anyone know, please, what standard of proof is required in proceedings for perjury...ie is it 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'balance of probabilty'? Given that the offence is criminal, I suspect that it is the former.
It would be nice if the Inquiry would supply her with a box of paper tissues and she chose to blow her nose rather than sniffing her way through her evidence.
Last edited by PickleB; 25th April 2024 at 14:29.
You can't be in the job and then claim no responsibility for your actions, incompetence is no excuse
Agreed...but liability (if eventually demonstrated) is not evidence of perjury.
Her body language was extremely defensive. Continually fiddling with her hands and crossing arms.
There's a lot of these people trying to obfuscate, twist out of their responsibilities and have bad memory lapses.
Indeed, but based on the people interviewed in the Horizon enquiry it pays well. When I was young I was told 'Cream Rises To The Top', I think a better expression would be 'Scum Floats' in these cases. Genuinely, how do these people get such jobs?
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Just wait until the later part of Friday afternoon when the SPM’s barristers get their chance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A lot of them have worked for the Post Office for years - products of the system and process/attitude in the organisation.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Indeed, that is often the best part and definitely worth the wait. The gloves really come off.
I was always taught that in large organisations people rise to their level of incompetence
Have they learned nothing from the BBC? Just claim 'mental health' and head off into the sunset with a fat pension.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
You realise you’re saying this to Peter, don’t you?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
You realise you’re saying this to Peter, don’t you?
It’s a matter of principle
Last edited by Griswold; 25th April 2024 at 22:58.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
ICYMI (I had):
- Post Office lawyer was warned of 'wrongful' convictions decade ago
- Post Office executive warned of wrongful conviction six years before innocent man was cleared
...the PO executive in the second of those being AvdB. Both are from ITV's coverage...link.
The higher up the tree they climb, the more you can see their arses.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
If only Fujitsu had snuck in to change Angela van den Bogerd’s evidence
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8...e640cde2fd2587
The Peter Principle seems to apply to those at the top of POL. That is on top of them being loathsome individuals who’ve been caught out.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Well, AvdB was a cold cookie. Brazen. Deflected everything.
Next up (mainly) for me is Jarnail Singh at the end of next week. Then it's a bit of wait for the main event, PV.
I also see that Gareth Jenkins is slated for four days at the end of June. That's going to be heavy duty.
Why does it need to take so long?
Dunno but from observation if you are say a humble carer, just one example, and you mistakenly tick the wrong box on the application form, then the full weight of the authorities drops on you post haste from a great height. Weird.
It's almost as if when a person is perceived to commit a crime against the State, even if it be an honest mistake, that such is dealt with incredibly seriously and at pace YET when the State commits a heinous crime against the people...In this instance the State being represented ''at arms length'' by the PO and Fujitsu, then the wheels of justice will most assuredly grind at glacial pace, the State's Ministers distracted, appeased with obscuration from the ''arms length'' arm's myrmidons.
I reckon when you outsource, proxy the states' institutions and functions more often than not you'll eventually get a pretty poxy state and bad things can, will happen to good, decent people in the cause of profit and cover up's.
Last edited by Passenger; 27th April 2024 at 10:32.
As for the Inquiry, I'd say because it is looking into events that took place over 16 years, involved many people (both perpetrators and victims), at least two major companies, several legal firms, mountains of correspondence etc etc. Add to that, it is being conducted in public because it this is a matter of major public concern.
Most Court cases are much more limited involving legally defined offences, not more than a few defendants and evidence limited to matters immediately related to the accusation. The Inquiry is trying to find out if what if any misdemeanours have been committed and by whom. Thus it is an investigation (subject to a MoU with the Met), needs to be comprehensive and so is necessarily lengthy.
Hugh Flemington today, Head of Legal.
Multiple choice answers:
1. I can’t recall, or
2. I can’t remember.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah - he's a twat.
Bet all his diaries have long gone.
Well- he took no responsibility, was the vaguest of vague and then ended with an apology (of sorts).
Last edited by blackal; 30th April 2024 at 13:07.
I haven’t watched, or kept up with this as much as I would like to.
Is it just everyone covering their own arses, or has there been any proper smoking gun moments?
To borrow from The Times - they are still looking for Will Smith, dressed in black wiping everyone's memories
The problem is the PO witnesses are very aware of the risk of criminal prosecution so are not being forthcoming with the enquiry and taking the 5th in the form of collective memory loss.
What's needed is the written evidence to require them to provide a version of their recollection which can then be tested against further evidence; in the absence thereof this was always going to be unsatisfactory.
There needs to be a robust criminal investigation and the current Govt seems to have no real desire to support that.
I think Labour should commit to in-depth investigations with a view to criminal prosecution re the PO scandal, PPE contracts, financial rewards received by MPs, the Russia report, misconduct in public office etc. Without that transparency any future Govt is forever undermined on the basis that most folk think they're all the same and they probably are!
They have all provided a written Witness Statement concluding with "I believe the content of this statement to be true" and are asked to confirm its content at the beginning of their oral evidence.
Yeah, my reference was to the need for credible evidence that could be put to them that would necessitate them recounting memories to defend themselves and incriminate others. Otherwise it looks like we'll end up with nobody being personally and substantively responsible for such an enormous scandal...
This is sickening. 2013!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnd69r7rz11o
"Mr Jenkins was later to give evidence in a number of cases, where he testified to the robustness of the Horizon system – evidence which was seen as crucial in winning those cases.However, by 2013 concerns had been raised about his evidence. Barrister Simon Clarke wrote a memo circulated within the Post Office which warned that Mr Jenkins was aware of flaws in the Horizon system.
Knowledge of those bugs would have helped the defence in those cases, and Mr Clarke said the IT expert did not disclose them when he should have.
"[He] failed to disclose material known to him but which undermines his expert opinion… in plain breach of his duty as an expert witness,” Mr Clarke’s advice said.
It said his credibility was “fatally undermined”, and recommended that he did not testify in current or future trials.
Mr Jenkins is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for alleged perjury."
I think that the future problems that Labour will have with the whole population - the things you mention, should be pretty popular (and just).
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Re Gareth Jenkins:
- Feb Update from Sir Wyn Williams
Phases 1 to 4 of the Inquiry are now substantially complete. I use the word “substantially” quite deliberately; oral evidence from a small number of witnesses, including Mr Gareth Jenkins, is yet to be heard and there remains a possibility that the continuing disclosure of documents to the Inquiry will reveal issues related to phases 2, 3 and 4 which will require the Inquiry to make public additional documents or even adduce further oral evidence.
- He is on the stand for the whole of week 11 Tu 26 to Fr 28 June
Bit of an odd day at the inquiry today.
There have been several disclosures where it is shown that SPMs, or their family/staff, have actually committed crimes. I'm not sure where the questioning is going today.
Last edited by Mouse; 1st May 2024 at 12:01.
Surely if you have a large enough sample of people some of them would have committed crimes
Indeed. I don't disagree. It just seemed a bit odd that counsel would refer to them during defensive 'arguments'.
Probably an attempt to reinforce a defence that these people are not trustworthy and lacking integrity, what a way to try and justify the post office position
Posting Permissions
