Reply With Quote
Exactly that. She ain't going to end up homeless and skint. When all's said and done she'll still be richer than most people, and can toddle off and do what she likes.Originally Posted by number2
Basically then she's just pinned it all.on Jane McLoud who now lives in Australia no one knows where or how to contact her and she's refused to come back and support the enquiry . Convenient for Vennels
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Exactly that. She ain't going to end up homeless and skint. When all's said and done she'll still be richer than most people, and can toddle off and do what she likes.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
From Wiki: “During her time leading the Post Office, Vennells earned a total of £5.1m, peaking in 2018 when she took home £718,300 in salary, bonuses, pensions and other benefits.”
I wonder if either of her two sons opine: “Mum - you are a weapons-grade cunt!” Or are they cut from the same cloth, and have done very nicely from her career and look to inherit???
Just burns up the time
They saved the most damning till last....
Shows the callous bitch for what she is. No amount of "I'm sorry for my bad choice of words" etc can take away from that! Everyone can see her for what she is.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry...l-jane-macleod
BeautifulThey saved the most damning till last....
Shows the callous bitch for what she is. No amount of "I'm sorry for my bad choice of words" etc can take away from that! Everyone can see her for what she is.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
See also this post...link.
Someone else of interest is Mike Young. From page (18) Pages 69 - 72 of today's transcript:
Q. Now, Mike Young is referred to in your statement as someone that had told you that there was no difficulty with the system, there are no bugs in the system. By mid-2013, you knew that not to be true. He was someone that hadn't told you the truth; do you agree?
A. I don't know -- in terms of the question put in that very black and white way, yes. I don't know what Mike Young did or didn't know. I can only go on what he told me at the time.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: As of July or the summer of 2013, was Mr Young still working at the Post Office?
A. Thank you, Sir Wyn, I was going to mention that. I think he had left by then.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Have you had any contact with him since, at all?
A. No, in terms of complete transparency, I think once -- he was an officer in the Para Regiment, and I contacted once on 11 November.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Have you had any recent contact with him?
A. No, I don't know what he's doing now.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. I don't want to elliptical about this, Mr Stein, it's just that the Inquiry to date has been unable to trace Mr Young and so I was seeing if Ms Vennells could help us.
THE WITNESS: No, I'm sorry.
Last edited by PickleB; 24th May 2024 at 21:56.
^^^ My apologies. I didn't realise it had been posted already.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Has everyone seen this?
It must have been during a previous phase of the inquiry I guess.
It is utterly mind blowing. Indeed, Jason Beer must have the patience of a saint!
Took me a while to work out context. She was on the Horizon help desk in some fashion it seems. She appears to have been stitched up by her own team somehow. Preparing a statement on her behalf maybe? Disgraceful really but if you’re thick enough to blindly trust then there’s no hope.
So as she swans off with her £5m the answer to “Will Paula Venells ever be held accountable?” must be…
Not in any material or practical sense.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Think you´re right OOK...I´d assume given her earnings she´ll have invested, saved, plausibly be pensioned up the wazoo. PV not striking me as the coke and hookers type, though with clergy you never can tell at face value. She could easily fall inside the wealthy net worth category of 3 to 4 millions and thence upwards, if she´s boarded the UK´s property express at the right time, could be in the tens of millions.
The only accountability she may ever genuinely face is if a wronged sub postmaster goes postal upon her.
Last edited by Passenger; 27th May 2024 at 09:32.
The whole thing is well worth watching. Spoiler, it doesn't start well and continues in similar vein....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M48j58Twjw
And this was a manager at Post Office!
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Thx for the link to the inquiry session actual. I've watched the whole thing now. I am speechless tbh.
Last edited by Mouse; 27th May 2024 at 11:15. Reason: watched it all
Jesus Christ, does she really think that everyone is stupid.
I wouldn't trust her on the checkout at Tesco.
Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
Beers facial expressions say it all.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
It starts getting interesting at around 1hr 15 however the rest needs to be watched for context. She keeps on saying that “ i wouldn't know how to do that” but is completely missing the point of whats being explained to her. Clearly done so on purpose as even someone with a limited comprehension could understand
Edit…the woman is an idiot
Last edited by Franky Four Fingers; 27th May 2024 at 13:28.
I just got to 1h36 when this exchange, as an example, occurs:
Q. I'll ask the question very generally. Why is it that your statement says you're exhibiting call logs between 10 January 2000 to 30 November 2000 and, in fact, the call logs that are exhibited are between February and June 2000?
A. I don't know. I don't remember this document at all. I just don't remember this at all.
Q. Can you help us how it is that --
A. I will help you as much as I can but, really, I don't understand where all this is coming from. Am I supposed to have written all this? I might well have signed it but I don't remember all this.
Q. Generally, when you write something to a court and say, "I believe the contents of this statement are true" and sign it with a pen underneath it, that indicates that you've written it. No?
A. Well, when am I supposed to have signed this?
Q. 16 October 2003.
A. I don't remember it. I don't remember it and the very first time I knew there'd been a court case about this was when this has just been raised again, when they sent me this bundle of papers. I didn't even know there'd been a court case before that.
The play dumb and dimwit defence.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
The bit that got me was the evidence proving that she had indeed rang the help centres on behalf of the PM when an end of day update had added an item yet omitted that from the evidence when she 2 weeks later suspended her.
The easiest ones to hold to account are the ones that knowingly lied in court when the 55 raised their case. There hasn't been a smoking gun that condemned any significant individual in the PLO afaik but plenty of e ails implying they knew
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Police investigations will happen. As we can imagine, it's going to be a long haul though.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...iminal-inquiry
80 detectives wow
Thing is they should have all the stuff at hand as I think they can ask the enquiry for all the files
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
The Metropolitan Police is a core participant and is represented throughout by the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Legal Services.
The written evidence and transcripts of oral evidence are published on the inquiry website also.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Yeah they have it all already prepared, just got to read it all
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Indeed the Inquiry has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Police Service whereby:
The MPS will provide the maximum assistance to the Inquiry that it reasonably can that is consistent with maintaining the independence and integrity of its investigation and will do so voluntarily wherever possible.
The Chair of the Inquiry will use all reasonable efforts, so far as consistent with his statutory duty under the Inquiries Act 2005, to conduct the Inquiry in a way which does not impede or compromise the MPS investigation or its integrity.
and
The MPS and the Inquiry have concluded an Information Sharing Agreement (“ISA”) to make suitable arrangements for the secure provision and discussion of sensitive information pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 17 above. Such arrangements are necessary to protect the rights of individuals and to avoid the risk of tipping off any suspect(s) of the MPS criminal investigation. For these reasons, the ISA will not be disclosed to Core Participants or published on the Inquiry’s website.
They are certainly being afforded a different form of justice to the one they abused for profit.
Last edited by stooo; 28th May 2024 at 10:33.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Of course it will. Kick the can a bit further down the road.
I've just watched a very small portion of Helen Rose (auditor) at the inquiry in Sept 2023.
Jason Beer - "Did you have any qualifications to be an auditor?"
HR - "No"
Jason Beer - "Did you receive any training to be an auditor?"
HR - "I believe it was on the job training"
<I'm thinking, so you're not a qualified accountant, nor even a qualified book-keeper, or actually anything!! And you only believe that you had some training>
Having now seen quite a bit about the internal workings/people of the PO I'm amazed it has ever actually functioned at all.
Christ on a bike
It’s a brave man who sends anything via the Royal Mail untracked or unsigned for these days…
So clever my foot fell off.
In other news , four 1st class stamps are now £5.40
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Probably end up like some other high profile investigations. They go on for long enough not to be front page news anymore then get quietly dropped.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I think everyone might still be underestimating Alan Bates
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Agreed 115% 😉
I agree. I am virtually certain he and his campaign are going to go for private prosecutions if needs be. They intend to see justice served.
Can you imagine how much funding they would receive to do so if they launched an online appeal to pay for it?
So clever my foot fell off.
Post Office signs fresh agreement with Fujitsu for a further 5 years for £180 million to provide ongoing support of the Horizon system.
Not all bad then.
I've got a feeling the legal profession will throw the lawyers at the Post Office to the wolves , justifiably so, they were appalling, and that others such as Vennels will hope that satisfies the public. Along with the witnesses from Fujitsu who lied in court of course.
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
This isn’t a surprise. Bespoke services are so hard to switch support suppliers upon. Even if you do switch then TUPE kicks in and the staff come across. They must be planning replacement of the system but who knows the timetable?
Never heard of that, when major corps change software systems...................
The other system owner has their own personnel?
They’re not changing the system, it’s support and development of the existing system. I worked for a company who did exactly this, (moved in-house support and development of an existing system to an external supplier), all staff were TUPE’d across. No alternative suppler will have the requisite knowledge to do otherwise.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
It’s an insult to the Postmasters imho
Agree re bespoke systems and software been through some , however given they knew about it’s failings over 10 years ago I am surprised but not shocked that a replacement from a less tainted supplier wasn’t planned at least 5 years ago.
Think Fujitsu would / should do it gratis and give the 180 million to the compensation fund.
but... but... shareholders and their dividends!
I presume Fujitsu are paying the Post Office £180m then?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
That might be quite cheap tbh for such a large contract
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
A HIGNFY recap of the debacle.................
I though I we wouldn't see a more dishonest testimony than Vennells, but I've just seen a summary of that from Alice Perkins the chair (effectively Vennells' boss) and it's obvious that she is equally up to her brass neck in the coverup.
Posting Permissions
