[News] Post Office Scandal -

[jcdenton08]

Like everyone else I want to see criminal prosecutions, but what can we do them for? To take Vennells as an example: being totally useless, breathtakingly incompetent and massively over-promoted is not actually a crime. Hopefully they can get them with something serious and not just a trivial corporate misdemeanour.

Perjury, fraud, even inchoate (conspiracy) offences are all plausible.

 

[Brovion]

Perjury, fraud, even inchoate (conspiracy) offences are all plausible.

Yeah, that'll do for starters (Bet it doesn't happen though).

 

[happypig]

I just think there are many people far more deserving of a council flat than her.

I quite agree, she’s bottom of the list but I believe everyone should have a home, no matter how contemptible they may be.

(and apologies if you thought I was calling you a heartless psychopath. I was referring to those in government who can end homelessness but don’t)

 

[jcdenton08]

Yeah, that'll do for starters (Bet it doesn't happen though).

We can hope. There’s certainly a lot for CPS to build a case with - IF they are so inclined

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The Chairman is superb with his little comments. Even when he got dripped on.

 

[Pevenseagull]

The Chairman is superb with his little comments. Even when he got dripped on.

Absolute zinger at the end.

'why?'

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Absolute zinger at the end.

'why?'

It didn't need her to answer, the silence was cutting.

 

[jcdenton08]

She’s got two more days of this. Been pretty gripping.

 

[Seagull58]

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)

Well exactly. Any decent database maintains a comprehensive audit trail of every data field change. It's necessary for rollback/rollforward recovery in any case.

 

[Bodian]

She was shown this email

KC Beer asked her if that was a sentiment that she agreed with.

Her first answer was 'No, I never used the word 'subbies', I thought it was completely the wrong word'.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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

I think the OP was referring to the QC Mr Beer's reminder at the start of a question - it suggests in answering the question he next asked she could incriminate herself. Doesn't matter any way as Beer made her look a right lying plum and it's one day one of three with her on the stand - bring on the next two days. Hope she rots in hell.

 

[portlock seagull]

"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.

Exactly. Contrast that with Paul Barber, who probably knows the wattage of the floodlights amongst everything else, and you can tell she’s lying.

 

[portlock seagull]

She was shown this email

View attachment 182807

KC Beer asked her if that was a sentiment that she agreed with.

Her first answer was 'No, I never used the word 'subbies', I thought it was completely the wrong word'.

Her colleague wrote that though, she was cced I believe.

 

[portlock seagull]

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

If every corporate inquiry simply leads to strong words, recommendations (that nobody ever takes onboard because the next sociopaths are already in charge and know they can get away with) and other ‘soft’ measures…is there any point to any of this I wonder? Ever? For anything? It’s just all rather procedural and no amount of justice will ever be served by it. In the court of appeal she and others are already convicted, but their liberty and wealth gained by are completely untouched. Tax payers pay the compensation. Tax payers pay the cost of the inquiry. All for what exactly? So we can further understand what we already know? I’d rather save the cost of an inquiry. It’s not going to change anything not already known and generally established.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Exactly. Contrast that with Paul Barber, who probably knows the wattage of the floodlights amongst everything else, and you can tell she’s lying.

If you're struggling to sleep maybe email PBOBE that question and then read his reply in bed.

 

[jcdenton08]

If every corporate inquiry simply leads to strong words, recommendations (that nobody ever takes onboard because the next sociopaths are already in charge and know they can get away with) and other ‘soft’ measures…is there any point to any of this I wonder? Ever? For anything? It’s just all rather procedural and no amount of justice will ever be served by it. In the court of appeal she and others are already convicted, but their liberty and wealth gained by are completely untouched. Tax payers pay the compensation. Tax payers pay the cost of the inquiry. All for what exactly? So we can further understand what we already know? I’d rather save the cost of an inquiry. It’s not going to change anything not already known and generally established.

What court of appeal? She’s never been charged let alone convicted (yet).

 

[Bodian]

Her colleague wrote that though, she was cced I believe.

Yes - he was asking her if she agreed with it. But what was striking was that her immediate thought was about showing herself to be above the use of the work 'subbies'. She had to be prompted to answer the important question of whether she thought that they had their hands in the tills.

 

[portlock seagull]

What court of appeal? She’s never been charged let alone convicted (yet).

Public opinion. Got auto changed to appeal!

 

[Bodian]

Oh - something else she didn't read / understand at the time....

 

[Weststander]

Awful 6 o’clock news summaries from bbc and itv meridian. Much mention that she apologised, also her “brought to tears”.

That was not the main message from today in any shape or form.

Instead; her callousness over the suicide, blaming others, damning texts and emails.