[News] Post Office Scandal -

[Silverhatch]

People don’t vote in elections based on injustice. They vote for whoever’s going to make them richer in the main.

That’s why the conservatives are *f***ed• amongst 18-34s - especially

 

[Guy Fawkes]

PV was advised during questioning about incriminating herself in answering, which, according to the guardian live blog, tends to be something that is mentioned when police/CPS have an interest in the matter.

Been listening to this evidence today as i work, and at the beginning the inquiry, before she had started to give any evidence or face any questions, the inquiry lead (judge?) did say this.

He did make it very clear that he has said this to everyone giving evidence during this inquiry, but also said that they should make it clear that they are not answering due to the risk of incriminating themself (at the time of their answer) and she then replied that she intended to answer every question and wouldn't need to use that option to avoid answering a question.

The way your comment reads is that the comment was given to her as she was answering or refusing to answer a particular question (implying that there was no answer given due to incriminating herself) which is very different

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Been listening to this evidence today as i work, and at the beginning the inquiry, before she had started to give any evidence or face any questions, the inquiry lead (judge?) did say this.

He did make it very clear that he has said this to everyone giving evidence during this inquiry, but also said that they should make it clear that they are not answering due to the risk of incriminating themself (at the time of their answer) and she then replied that she intended to answer every question and wouldn't need to use that option to avoid answering a question.

The way your comment reads is that the comment was given to her as she was answering or refusing to answer a particular question (implying that there was no answer given due to incriminating herself) which is very different

Anyone able to deconstruct the above post into simple English?

 

[jcdenton08]

Been listening to this evidence today as i work, and at the beginning the inquiry, before she had started to give any evidence or face any questions, the inquiry lead (judge?) did say this.

He did make it very clear that he has said this to everyone giving evidence during this inquiry, but also said that they should make it clear that they are not answering due to the risk of incriminating themself (at the time of their answer) and she then replied that she intended to answer every question and wouldn't need to use that option to avoid answering a question.

The way your comment reads is that the comment was given to her as she was answering or refusing to answer a particular question (implying that there was no answer given due to incriminating herself) which is very different

Yes, the British equivalent of “pleading the fifth” in Inquiries such as this is simply saying “I am not able to answer that question”. However, doing so is obviously a very bad look as it all but implies guilt (whether that’s right or wrong) - especially at an Inquiry where a large part of the process is about transparency and fact-finding. Double particularly in a case with huge public interest and media coverage.

In her case, she is going for mercy before the Inquiry with constant apologies and contrition for the victims, without saying anything whatsoever to take ownership of what she did. As doing so would be evidence of a crime. So rather than saying she doesn’t want to answer, she says she doesn’t recall.

 

[jcdenton08]

Anyone able to deconstruct the above post into simple English?

Chair of Inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, tells witnesses before they speak to the inquiry that what they say is on the record and can be used potentially as evidence of a crime. Warns them about self-incrimination and says they have the right to refuse a question rather than self-incriminate or lie to the Inquiry

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Chair of Inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, tells witnesses before they speak to the inquiry that what they say is on the record and can be used potentially as evidence of a crime. Warns them about self-incrimination and says they have the right to refuse a question rather than self-incriminate or lie to the Inquiry

Thanks

 

[jcdenton08]

Of course she knew. I don’t believe a word she says, and I think she’s lied through her teeth all morning and every day leading up to this.

BBC:

I just caught up with Harjinder Butoy, of Derbyshire, who was wrongfully convicted of stealing £208,000 and served an 18-month term, prompting his Post Office branch to be shut down.

He says he's struggling to believe "anything that comes out of her [Vennells'] mouth" and certainly doesn't believe the tears we've seen today.


Harjinder a man after my own heart. She’s a terrible liar.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

As with all the other scandals which have come to light recently it seems that people's actions can ruin people's lives and they can then enjoy impunity afterwards.

I somehow doubt any of these individuals will be doing any time in jail due to statute of limitations etc. but will be heading off into the sunset with their index linked pensions.

Cowards without a conscience unfit to live amongst decent law abiding folk.

 

[Pevenseagull]

And they're back out...

 

[jcdenton08]

As with all the other scandals which have come to light recently it seems that people's actions can ruin people's lives and they can then enjoy impunity afterwards.

I somehow doubt any of these individuals will be doing any time in jail due to statute of limitations etc. but will be heading off into the sunset with their index linked pensions.

Cowards without a conscience unfit to live amongst decent law abiding folk.

No statute of limitations for crown court cases in the UK. You’re thinking of America.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Chair of Inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, tells witnesses before they speak to the inquiry that what they say is on the record and can be used potentially as evidence of a crime. Warns them about self-incrimination and says they have the right to refuse a question rather than self-incriminate or lie to the Inquiry

This is a much better explanation than the way i put it. (working so was rushing my reply earlier)

I replied to a comment that seemed to imply she was warned whilst answering a specific question and that she risked incriminating herself (or that is how it read, and i took to be misleading) but my reply was to clarify that the warning is given to all that take part and wasn't in relation to any specific question

 

[jcdenton08]

Absolutely clinical cross-examination. TELL THE TRUTH VENNELLS.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

To be fair, it's pretty easy to tell when Paula Vennells is lying - her lips move

 

[Weststander]

I've love the counsel to say "Cut the crocodile tears".

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

In the end, it'll be like the 2008 Financial Crash based on shitty worthless financial products. Everybody will disclaim any responsibility of knowing about the bigger picture, nobody responsible will go to jail

 

[jcdenton08]

In the end, it'll be like the 2008 Financial Crash based on shitty worthless financial products. Everybody will disclaim any responsibility of knowing about the bigger picture, nobody responsible will go to jail

We can still hope. The CPS would never have moved before the inquiry took place anyway. So allowing for the speed of their work, they’ll probably finish reviewing the file some time in 2028 and decide no further action.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

That thing about inappropriate access to the database and erroneous/unauthorised changes to prior transactions? It's a smokescreen. Every single major project based on a major database I ever worked on had an unalterable audit trail of every change to the database, authorised or otherwise. The audit trail entry will show exactly who made the change (their user id) and when (timestamp of the change)

 

[jcdenton08]

That thing about inappropriate access to the database and erroneous/unauthorised changes to prior transactions? It's a smokescreen. Every single major project based on a major database I ever worked on had an unalterable audit trail of every change to the database, authorised or otherwise

I wondered that. Don’t these systems leave digital footprints for basically everything? I mean it’s hardly surprising that Fujitsu have been less than forthcoming with data, but surely digital forensics of the actual Horizon system are sorely lacking in this inquiry so far.

 

[Bodian]

"I didn't know", "I wasn't told", "I wasn't aware".

Piece of piss being a CEO of a huge organisation isn't it. Don't need to know anything, be aware of anything or have anything to do with anything.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I wondered that. Don’t these systems leave digital footprints for basically everything? I mean it’s hardly surprising that Fujitsu have been less than forthcoming with data, but surely digital forensics of the actual Horizon system are sorely lacking in this inquiry so far.

Yes, yes they do. I've worked on a couple of huge Fujitsu (formerly known as ICL) government projects and there is always a full-blown audit trail of changes. It's written directly to a table on that database. That database is backed up every night, or even sometimes in real time. The database changes audit trail should be definitely made available to the enquiry, as should the Fujitsu defect list. Taken together, the whole truth would emerge