[News] Post Office Scandal -

[Weststander]

The judge’s final report will destroy the lot of them, there’ll be a great deal of unconvincing or unreliable witness.

Beer is expertly fact and falsehoods gathering, it’s not a prosecution to impress the jury, he doesn’t need to be in attack mode.

 

[Bodian]

The judge’s final report will destroy the lot of them, there’ll be a great deal of unconvincing or unreliable witness.

Beer is expertly fact and falsehoods gathering, it’s not a prosecution to impress the jury, he doesn’t need to be in attack mode.

Tomorrow might be feisty though. Instead of the calm Mr Beer, it's the turn of barristers representing victims and others. They will be far more attack minded.

 

[Sirnormangall]

Tomorrow might be feisty though. Instead of the calm Mr Beer, it's the turn of barristers representing victims and others. They will be far more attack minded.

Beer has been good, but it will be interesting to hear from other barristers. I read today an interesting “side story” in Private Eye ( apologies if previously posted). A few years ago a sub postmaster was jailed for the murder of his wife. Apparently the main motive was to hide the cash discrepancies in his post office. He’d always claimed that the murderer was a masked intruder who’d forced him to open the safe. There were no forensics that linked the postmaster to the murder and the murder weapon carried another person’s dna. Following the revelation that the Horizon system isn’t bombproof, the sub postmaster is appealing his conviction.

 

[Weststander]

Tomorrow might be feisty though. Instead of the calm Mr Beer, it's the turn of barristers representing victims and others. They will be far more attack minded.

There’ll be plenty of contrived reaches for the box of Kleenex to break the barristers flow. Along with hollow “sorry”s and “If only I knew then what I’ve since learnt”.

 

[Talby]

Beer has been good, but it will be interesting to hear from other barristers. I read today an interesting “side story” in Private Eye ( apologies if previously posted). A few years ago a sub postmaster was jailed for the murder of his wife. Apparently the main motive was to hide the cash discrepancies in his post office. He’d always claimed that the murderer was a masked intruder who’d forced him to open the safe. There were no forensics that linked the postmaster to the murder and the murder weapon carried another person’s dna. Following the revelation that the Horizon system isn’t bombproof, the sub postmaster is appealing his conviction.

Oh my god, if that’s found to be true…

 

[slimes]

What are the odds that Vennells will be to poorly to attend tomorrow knowing she has to face the barristers of the victims?

 

[Bodian]

What are the odds that Vennells will be to poorly to attend tomorrow knowing she has to face the barristers of the victims?

They will make her appear on a different day.

 

[Easy 10]

Rightfully, she's getting publically shredded.

If I was her, my bedsheets would be absolutely SODDEN right now. Drenched.

 

[rippleman]

Been shoved off the front page by soggy Sunak and the GE but Vennels still giving evidence. Still bleating she "didn't know" or claiming she "can't remember" and has introduced a new tactic now of pretending not to understand the questions. She knows she is in last hour or so of giving evidence so just trying to drag it out. She came out with this absolute classic.

"You are not responsible for everything that happens underneath you,"

She was CEO at the time! You bloody well ARE responsible.

Oh, and she has been doing blubbing again and the audience has periodically been booing her. The police must act. She has to do time.

ETA Jo Hamilton - one of the convicted innocents - is sat right in front of the barrister now asking the questions. It is brilliant to see her face. She seems to alternate between glaring at Vennels and laughing at her pathetic attempts to distance herself from the whole shebang.

 

[banjo]

Been shoved off the front page by soggy Sunak and the GE but Vennels still giving evidence. Still bleating she "didn't know" or claiming she "can't remember" and has introduced a new tactic now of pretending not to understand the questions. She knows she is in last hour or so of giving evidence so just trying to drag it out. She came out with this absolute classic.

"You are not responsible for everything that happens underneath you,"

She was CEO at the time! You bloody well ARE responsible.

Oh, and she has been doing blubbing again and the audience has periodically been booing her. The police must act. She has to do time.

ETA Jo Hamilton - one of the convicted innocents - is sat right in front of the barrister now asking the questions. It is brilliant to see her face. She seems to alternate between glaring at Vennels and laughing at her pathetic attempts to distance herself from the whole shebang.

Hopefully her and her side kick too.

 

[happypig]

Been shoved off the front page by soggy Sunak and the GE but Vennels still giving evidence. Still bleating she "didn't know" or claiming she "can't remember" and has introduced a new tactic now of pretending not to understand the questions. She knows she is in last hour or so of giving evidence so just trying to drag it out. She came out with this absolute classic.

"You are not responsible for everything that happens underneath you,"

She was CEO at the time! You bloody well ARE responsible.

I am a complainy bastard and not shy of writing (actual letters mind, none of this email shennanigans) to a CEO to complain.
I once got a letter back from the CEO of the Woolwich Building Society apologising for the problem and assuring me it would be sorted (Woolwich were unable to take payment for my Woolwich mortgage from my Woolwich account and no-one could figure out why).
What stuck in my memory was he said “whilst I am not directly involved in this process, as head of the organisation I take full responsibility for every mistake we make”.
Vennels seems to be trying to distance herself from all of it, claiming not to know they could, and did, prosecute people and being generally unaware of everything going on beneath her.

 

[Bodian]

Been shoved off the front page by soggy Sunak and the GE but Vennels still giving evidence. Still bleating she "didn't know" or claiming she "can't remember" and has introduced a new tactic now of pretending not to understand the questions. She knows she is in last hour or so of giving evidence so just trying to drag it out. She came out with this absolute classic.

"You are not responsible for everything that happens underneath you,"

She was CEO at the time! You bloody well ARE responsible.

Oh, and she has been doing blubbing again and the audience has periodically been booing her. The police must act. She has to do time.

ETA Jo Hamilton - one of the convicted innocents - is sat right in front of the barrister now asking the questions. It is brilliant to see her face. She seems to alternate between glaring at Vennels and laughing at her pathetic attempts to distance herself from the whole shebang.

The final 20 minutes were fascinating. I thought the questioner was a bit disjointed to begin with, but he ended up basically setting her up for his final piece.

He asked about her media colleague and a comment on the Today programme. She said that it was awful, and not something she would ever have said - this went on for a while, and the narrative was that she would never, ever have said anything like this and so on. Bear in mind this is after three days of her saying that her main concern was for the subpostmasters and so on.

He then took us to an email she had written just eight days later, following a TV programme. Effectively being dismissive and saying the sort of thing that she had just spent five minutes saying she would never say.

In her witness statement she had apologised and said it was a mistake to have written what she had written. And wasn't the example she wanted to set for her colleagues and didn't reflect her attitude towards the issues.

The questioner put it to her that she was really sorry because it was in an email and now in an inquiry, but was indeed what she really thought at the time. He asked her if her mask had slipped. His final question was 'is it not just that the truth came out this time?'

I think she will be glad to get home tonight.

 

[Weststander]

Well, that destroys her measured, gentle facade.

Her email of 17/12/14 ... she comes across as evil.

 

[Boys 9d]

Is tThe Peter Principle too kind to PV

"In a hierarchy, every person tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence"

 

[GJN1]

The final 20 minutes were fascinating. I thought the questioner was a bit disjointed to begin with, but he ended up basically setting her up for his final piece.

He asked about her media colleague and a comment on the Today programme. She said that it was awful, and not something she would ever have said - this went on for a while, and the narrative was that she would never, ever have said anything like this and so on. Bear in mind this is after three days of her saying that her main concern was for the subpostmasters and so on.

He then took us to an email she had written just eight days later, following a TV programme. Effectively being dismissive and saying the sort of thing that she had just spent five minutes saying she would never say.

In her witness statement she had apologised and said it was a mistake to have written what she had written. And wasn't the example she wanted to set for her colleagues and didn't reflect her attitude towards the issues.

The questioner put it to her that she was really sorry because it was in an email and now in an inquiry, but was indeed what she really thought at the time. He asked her if her mask had slipped. His final question was 'is it not just that the truth came out this time?'

I think she will be glad to get home tonight.

I don't think I could even contemplate giving evidence like that for three days.

 

[abc]

I know this won’t be a popular thought judging by some of the extreme comments on here, but I worry about the Lord of the Flies type ‘judge, jury and executioner’ mantra that has taken hold. Vennels clearly has a massive amount of culpability and must face the legal consequences but if the current hounding of her leads to yet another suicide associated with this tragic saga, I for one will not be celebrating.

 

[Weststander]

I don't think I could even contemplate giving evidence like that for three days.

She’s had 10 years to prepare, to visualise herself as the victim of subordinates who never put her in the loop. In the end the lies can become a reality in her mind’s eye.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I know this won’t be a popular thought judging by some of the extreme comments on here, but I worry about the Lord of the Flies type ‘judge, jury and executioner’ mantra that has taken hold. Vennels clearly has a massive amount of culpability and must face the legal consequences but if the current hounding of her leads to yet another suicide associated with this tragic saga, I for one will not be celebrating.

While I'd suggest two wrongs don't make a right, it seems reasonable to hold people to account. Even more so when respected members of communities have had their names dragged through the mud, lost everything, been to prison, been made bankrupt and even killed themselves based on a bunch of lies perpetrated by C level execs and senior management - and quite clearly all of them knew early on their statements were utter arse covering.

PV can do what ever she wants but she deserves prison time and if she kills herself you'll not see any tears from me. She has lead to the death of others.

Hopefully how she has been humiliated will make other execs think twice about going down the same path.

 

[Weststander]

I know this won’t be a popular thought judging by some of the extreme comments on here, but I worry about the Lord of the Flies type ‘judge, jury and executioner’ mantra that has taken hold. Vennels clearly has a massive amount of culpability and must face the legal consequences but if the current hounding of her leads to yet another suicide associated with this tragic saga, I for one will not be celebrating.

She won’t be reading NSC or the comments in The Mirror or Guardian. Instead praying to our saviour.

 

[Vin]

I know this won’t be a popular thought judging by some of the extreme comments on here, but I worry about the Lord of the Flies type ‘judge, jury and executioner’ mantra that has taken hold. Vennels clearly has a massive amount of culpability and must face the legal consequences but if the current hounding of her leads to yet another suicide associated with this tragic saga, I for one will not be celebrating.

She needs a bullet. Horrible women, knew exactly what was going on and could have stepped in years ago.