Certainly Vennells couldn't think of an answer - or at least an answer that she could give in public. I suspect she full well knew the real answer - and also knew, she absolutely must not say that out loud.
Yes. It's also the question that a toddler can destroy an adult with ... they just need to repeat it a few times and the adult usually collapses into state of existential dispair :)
Who, what, why, where when, which? Every question needs to start with one of these question words, when asking these lying beggars! I hope justice will be served on all those involved in this shameful event?
Post grad. Applied Psychologist here, with Post Grad. Counselling qualifications (I never used the degree or them) finding myself as a now semi retired former RM employee of 30 years' service, having taken EVR 13 years ago. I'd had enough! Watching this moment from the Inquiry's own feed, live, as I have from the off, Sir Wyn's 'Why?', made this one shout out 'Wow!'. With one word, he had her cornered with no escape, and summed up RMG/POL's stance and projection onto others in this scandal - their default modus operandi down the decades on any negativity - with utmost, impeccable precision. What has come out in the inquiry does NOT surprise me one iota. It has been all TOO familiar - from diffusion of responsibility, via delusions of grandeur, through to the Peter Principle, to Dilbert Principle, to complete abandonment and dereliction or duty/role.
She seems like a very self-righteous person and feels unduly attacked. It's sheers self pity. Not a shred of personal responsibility taken. She will never learn her lesson no matter how much she is made to pay.
I respect your opinion. Mine, expressed elsewhere here, is quite different. I would describe Ms vdBogerd as a husk, a shell, inured to any personal feelings, all humanity and imagination drained by a career of working in the suffocating environment of the antiquated (in terms of culture, thinking) post office. As Mr Beer described her, an automaton. Ms Vennells is very immature. She tries hard to seem like a grown-up, but subconsciously she's still a child, very needy of approval. At times she tried to play-act being strong, and tough, and decisive, just like the men around her (I'd love to know more about her father!). The men? Also immature, but a bit better at acting, and very good at not having any emotional intelligence, by virtue of not having any. With Vennells. her whole church thing was a way to be good, because try as she mighatingt, much as she wanted, she wasn't allowed to be good at work, do the right thing, not at the post office. And she couldn't. She too lacks the maturity and emotional intelligence required of a senior corporate manager. Note how the ones who came along after 2011, 2012, 2013, all left pretty quickly. Shit money, shit culture, shit people beneath them who were shit at doing their shit jobs (in head office I mean, not post offices). Tragic, sad, but not cunning or calculating. No one at the post office was smart enough to be cunning or calculating. Same story all over corporate, privatised Britain.
Wynn William's 'Why' absolutely stumped Vennells, and her complete inability to give any answer that would not cast her into a bad light was very telling, as were the tears that came after. Those stifled tears were solely for herself as she knew she'd been caught. Thus exposing exactly what you've said, that she put profit and reputation/'corporate image' above compassion and care for SPM and, ultimately the truth.
Hi Paul. Thanks for this - Sir Wynn's parting shot worked - she fell apart when he asked "Why?". Throughout her testimony, Paula tried to occupy the moral high ground and uses this halo to neutralise or deflect criticism. Not victimhood but sainthood. She got away with it for years - how could such a 'nice' lady be so callous. In the theatre this called "the suspension of disbelief".
She "projected" all the time and played the "victim".... "I would have been thinking...", was used often to explain a behaviour that was at odds with the evidence:.. and they did not match her actual actions. Was she part of the Peter principle? Her actions are completely at odds with her quoted beliefs .. complex personality.
@@peterduce3155 I have yet to see a psychologist on youtube do justice to her testimony - I think it might be 'borderline personality disorder with narcissistic traits' [like Tony Blair] - but I am not an expert - a friend of mine is a trained counsellor and saw Vennells as a possible suicide risk. If it was me, I'd treat the court with contempt - like Elaine Cottam - Paula was very respectful - like a child that is contrite.
Interesting points. Yes, I do think Vennells was/is feeling it now. I think it's less remorse but more the awareness of how much hatred there is being directed towards her. that would give anyone the wobbles.
Are they going to drag this out till all the victims have died ? When are they going to prosecute these swine ? when are they going to pay proper compensation to victims ?
This is thorough because it’s historic. It will allow much swifter prosecutions due to the detailed nature of it and will also hopefully be instrumental in leading ti significant reforms.
The short answer is yes. It is the way like Hillsborough, Grenville and many others before and after. The sheer volume of evidence being generated now, will take decades to shift through, the televised inquiry will ensure a fair trial will be unable to happen. Good luck finding a jury that have not been biased by the inquiry or TV show. Justice came on swift wings for the sub post masters, it’ll come by snail mail for the post office bosses, Fujitsu and ministers. I’ll also ask, why the post office are not suing Fujitsu for a computer program they could manipulate at will. That wasn’t what the post office paid for. Also, we need to look at why Blair was convinced to accept the Fujitsu company by Japan in the first place, considering how Fujitsu failed with the NHS contract.
This is really an excellent, thoughtful analysis. It's easy to think in terms of individuals having no care for the damage they cause, but I think you're right in highlighting something much deeper going on, in terms of the destructive mindset visible in so many corporate institutions that enabled such a dehumanization of the SPOs with such catastrophic results. I've watched quite a lot of the PO Horizon enquiry sessions and much of it is terrifyingly familiar, seeing the pressure exerted within an institution to defend that institution against any perceived threat, to belittle and minimize any criticism or challenge, and the way in which people internalise that ethos as doing their job in a professional way. Sir Wyn's question of 'why?' should be a wakeup call and something that people ask themselves in any action they put their name to.
Thanks so much for your posting. Really liked your insight on this - I think the public anger is coming from that place or recognition - we have seen this type of behaviour in our own workplaces. p
[2:39] Paul Vennells made a point of faking emotion at points where she was facing a particularly difficult question. You'll notice she's very distraught but manages to insert the idea that people don't necessarily commit suicide on the basis of one incident such as being bullied by the post office who demand huge amounts of money including money lost in a violent robbery where the sub-postmaster was injured. It's one of the most despicable shows of callousness ever.
Yes she was disgusting. That statement tells you everything including that the father was an open and decent person who couldn’t possibly consider how she would use his own words against his son who just died because of her.
Paula Vennels came across all “Head Girl” - superficially confident, righteous and somewhat bumptious. But as one of the lawyers said during cross examination, the mask started to slip. And once the real, unedifying Paula started to emerge, we got the tears of a child crying because they’ve been found out.
Yep, I got that sense to. There's a swagger, a inflated self confidence. And when it comes crashing down ... oh boy, it makes a right mess! Thanks for your comment. I thought it was great. p
So right. I imagine she says “jolly” a lot, straight out of an Enid Blyton book. Talking of a child, Alice Perkins, once challenged, reminded me of the child who was never told “no”. She was nonplussed at being “spoken to that way”. They’re all just overgrown children… running our country… the heart sinks.
Actually beer was completely deft in his approach. There are standards he is upholding for all as she should have done for the poor subbies she shafted.
I don't think he was concerned at all. It's a very good technique to use to put people in a place where they will tell you more if they think you are on there side. Police interviewers use it all the time.
Excellent points Dr. The Inquiry has laid bare the gulf between the anodyne and soulless (indeed in some cases, even callous) behaviour of the Post Office's Corporate Masters, and the subpostmasters who have acted with integrity both during the scandal as well as the recent Inquiry. On those rare occasions when Rev Vennells or van den Bogard have acted teary, it appeared to me as though their "sadness" was directed inwards towards themselves, rather than towards their victims. One could make a cheap remark about Rev Vennells has singularly failed to show any of the supposed character and empathy her clerical position demands. Her thirty pieces of silver was £5.1Million.
Very good. Thank you. As bad as all this is, even worse was the Archbishop of Canterbury's defence of his candidature of Vennells for the Bishopric of London. Perhaps it is time that the Church of England fell into your sights.
Hiya Paul - I am an Irish guy who is finding the Post Office scandal compelling - to say the least. Recently, I stumbled across your you tube channel. It’s a must. A real companion piece, that is helping me navigate my way through the mire. I’m not for a second going to suggest smugly that this couldn’t happen over here. But I also think on the other hand, your antiquated class system is being exposed as a central player in all of this. The people at the top (people of the cloth, eminent Lords & Ladies Haw Haw etc) never for a second considered that those little minion sub postmasters, could be anything other than guilty. Keep it goin’ Noel.
Thanks so much Noel. Yes, I think you are spot on. THere are lots of issues around social class in all of this. And, sorry about my terribly late response - I am still catching up with all the comments.
I think in both cases they responded like they did because that was their way to defend themselves. In one case was: "I just did what I was told", in the other: " I'm sorry, I was careless, but this is in the past...."
Both thew Post Office Senior and Local managements have bee feral for many years, unfair disapplinary practices, failed health and safety practices. i can even recall a case where an employee won a financial settllement in a health and safety case, the P.O. appealed, the case went back to court and the amount awarded was doubled by the judge. This is what happens when an organisation like the P.O is allowed to continue unchecked, bucket loads of public money wasted, and lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. It's happening now. Sunak has set aside more public money for compensation when it is Fujitsu (strangely quiet) who should be footing the bill. They sold a system under false pretences paid for by public money, and then kept hidden the fact that it was remotely accessible from an external source, and did not disclose a directory full of known faults until their arm was twisted. The Post Office have continued to persecute Postmasters even when they knew the system was faulty. The Postmasters deserve justice for this but, lets not ever forget, or belittle the part played by Fujitsu and it's software that brought all this about.
Did Paula Vennells put profit above everything else? Didn't the Post Office on at least one occasion choose to "spend" £300k in legal fees to recover £25k?
Thank you, Paul. I like what you're doing here, simply taking 10 minutes or so to focus on 3 or 4 key elements and providing time for thought. It would be great to see more like this. I appreciate the time it takes to construct such a video, but they expose the problem for later consideration. PS. Put your role and qualification, Dr., in your intro piece on the youtube channel. There are many fake YT lecturers out there 😮
Thanks, that's lovely feedback and yes, I will keep pluggin away at this and try and make some more videos. Should have another one coming out sometime today :) Good point about putting my qualifications on my channel. I'll do that, thanks :)
What strikes me the most, is they went from disinterest in the issue, to realization of the seriousness of the issue, to all hands on deck to contain and sweep everything under the rug with as much force as possible.
12:06 Coming from a perspective of almost 40 years of software development: Fujitsu ought to lay open the complete source code history of Horizon and all their tools accompanying its daily transactions/corrections/accounting. It's the only way to have transparency in our data-driven economy. Very rare exceptions aside, same holds for _any_ software.
Sounds very sensible to me. I am an advocate of open source software. The software space looks to me like It's a space that is still lacking proper, serious, grown up ethical and political thinking through ... social media debates politicians are involved in right now are low grade and retrograde and public debates seem more driven by investor interests in silicon valley who promote fear and hype and all that stuff seems so far away from the type of discussion that needs to be had regarding software development.. It shoudl have happened long before the latest hype cycle around AI. But, I am an amateur observer on this, so may have it very wrong.
The SPMS & all affected by the prosecutions seem to me to have been held in total disregard and even now are considered as being collateral damage while these POL employees involved in carrying out and ignoring the wrongful conduct fought/still fight, to protect their own professional and personal positions. CONTEMPTIBLE behaviour.
The NDA was paid in installments to hold over the family to remain silent over the behaviour of the Post Office. That is a very relevant detail 8n his questioning. It brings me joy that he did not appear to react to her W W tears that is so often weaponised.
There will be, but the inquiry has to conclude first. Sir Wyn has given warnings to certain individuals about their rights around 'self-incrimination' at the start of their giving evidence because they are likely to be the focus of criminal investigations post-inquiry.
Very insightful analysis. I have watched nearly every episode of the inquiry and I can only recall 3 or 4 people (giving evidence) who showed they were people with integrity. I must say Paul that your analysis should become compulsory viewing for everyone intending to work in any public or private organisation and distills the best take away lesson from the post office debacle. Thankyou
Van den Bogerd has a face chiselled out of pure granite, with a heart to match. Deserves a big helping of 'porridge', along with Vennells, but I will be surprised if there is a single prosecution at the end of this Post Office Scandal Inquiry.
This was a delightful surprise and Paul's analysis of these reprehensible women, who evidently and clearly gave not the slightest concern either for the people they were intentionally hounding or indeed the organisation they were very generously rewarded by. I refer to the Post Office, as distinct from the Subpostmasters, because if a prosecution of my staff was taking place at a rate of one every week for fourteen years i.e. well in excess of 700 in total, and I was supposed to be managing the PO in a professional manner, which of course includes a reasonable degree of objectivity, then surely surely wouldn't I be commissioning a senior member of my generously salaried staff to investigate and prepare a detailed report as to why this very overt set of circumstances was occurring. Sir Wyn Williams asked that simple question, didn't he?
Thanks, glad it was a nice surprise. Great posting. you've made some excellent points here. Yes, nice simple question from Sir Wyn, the simple questions are often the most effective. p
In a way, the veils are now more numerous, drawn so as to form multiple individual cubicles of amnesia. At least, that's what we've seen repeatedly claimed. Behind those veils are other curtains of obliquity, tapestries scrupulously embroidered with "nobodytoldme". All these fabrics are now torn and tattered, but we are still some way from seeing them entirely torn down.
Yes, sadly I agree. I'm part of the problem ... academics like me are the ones churning out these professionals from our universities. We fail to give them a sufficient moral education ... I think we likely focus on teaching them the wrong stuff :{
Cut out this person did this and that person should have done that they are guilty moneys lost and reparation should be awarded. The people from post office management should be jailed and the moneys lost reparation should be paid before the end of this year. All MPs that where told about this should be sacked with non pensions for aiding and abetting the post office.
Not welsh, but spent lots of time in teh north west of england, so might have picked up a lilt (I am quite shallow!) 😊And, sorry for taking so long to respond. 😟I have got way more comments than I had anticipated on my videos so I'm still working my way through them.
I have watched the majority of these sessions and one thing has struck me. The post office seems to have employed a whole group of unfeeling harridans.
The last question from the Chair is like shooting a fish in a barrel. Vanilla (sic) is struck dumb. No wriggle room. No word salad. No faux emotion. Brilliant.
There did appear to be a group of controlling women at the centre of the Post Office hierarchy, surrounded by a lower group of compliant and hapless men. The women were ruthless, aggressive and conniving. It was almost as if these women were trying to be macho
The corporation's vast SIZE was a huge factor for their ongoing failures - group think, job preservation, greed, evilness, spider's web of off-set decision making, not questioning decisions, not probing technical answers, blindly accepting ability of others, expecting others to bear responsibility/ initiative, senior management secrecy and incompetence for 20 years.
Well, that sums things up rather nicely😊 Thanks so much for posting And, sorry for taking so long to respond. 😟I have got way more comments than I had anticipated on my videos so I'm still working my way through them.
Thank you Paul. That was really, really useful to have your insight and analysis of how and why these people conducted themselves in such surprising and odd ways (to most of us at least). I hadn’t spotted it the first time around, but watching back the moment after Jason Beer tells Paula Vennells to compose herself before continuing her evidence - Yes, you’re quite right he didn’t show any empathy (and frankly nor did most people watching Vennells’ performance feel much towards her either) and I cannot blame him for that; but what I hadn’t noticed the first time around was what his facial expressions and body language was telling us in the moment after he’d finished speaking. By all means look at it again, but he almost rolls his eyes in contempt or disgust at the sheer audacity of this woman, who had done so much harm to others now trying to play a caring, principled ‘human’ being that had ‘only ever’ been driven by what she ‘thought was the right thing to do’ 🤮
@mollienight Yes, it’s amazing just how much you can say with just the eyes, and in some cases, so much more effectively than with any words you could choose. Though it did feel as though Jason Beer’s reaction there was totally genuine; not part of the carefully crafted ‘performance’ (in the sense Paul uses that word 😉). Have worked with many highly skilled barristers over the years and I must say that, whilst it’s perfectly natural to want to see a delivery that ‘really gives it to them’ (when they deserve a good pasting), it’s almost always far, far more effective when put calmly, with a seemingly understated delivery like that which Jason Beer uses most of the time. I think he’s truly remarkable. Forget their names, but the 2 KC’s leading the COVID Enquiry had a similar, deceptively ‘understated’ style of delivery too 🙌 On that subject, can’t wait to see them dismantle Matt Hancock and his cronies over the PPE contracts - Had briefly wondered whether Sunak called the snap election in part to prevent the full truth about their corruption on that being laid bare in the lead up to an election in November! That would have destroyed what little remaining support there was for them - though currently looks like they’re doing a pretty good job of dismantling their reputation without the need for any assistance
@mollienight No, don’t apologise for being negative. Never apologise for telling the truth! Yes, sadly we’ve all become so used to politicians (and others - but especially the populist, right wing) lying to us all, feeding off fear and hatred, so much so that it’s numbed our senses of how important the truth actually is. Sometimes it’s gaslighting, other times the audience who support populist politicians are knowing complicit (as are the media) in going along with and repeating these lies, until everyone takes them, unquestioned, as the new “truth”. Then everyone shrugs their shoulders and says “they’re all the same” and “you can’t trust politicians”. The truth is VITALLY IMPORTANT if we are to maintain faith in and uphold the institutions that prevent democracy being undermined. We need to stand up for the importance of truth and demand better standards in public life, instead of putting up with self-entitled, sociopathic liars like Boris-F’ing-Johnson, just because he can charm fools into allowing him to get away with whatever toxic sh@t he wants to pedal, just to get to where he wants - without ever caring about who gets harmed in the process. Trump is the same, just with a bigger audience 🤮
Thanks so much Stephen, Yes, I had spotted Beer's death stare. I made sure to keep it in. Glad you spotted it. I think a lot of people missed when it first broadcast. p
Interesting to hear ex lawyer or whatever saying the ones that had been in seniority for a long time were the ones who were so against anything said about Horizon. Bonuses perhaps. I reckon Angela and Paula were behind all this. False tears .
They were both performing as they (as had all the PO staff witnesses ) all had been well schooled as to how to behave. It is no coincidence that they all have “no memory “of things they must have some memory of !
Thanks for posting this. :) I totally sympathise with your view on this but I have mixed feelings about it. I would struggle remembering things 10 years ago, but I think that sometimes it is a cover. Also, I can remember meetings 10 years ago that were consequential so maybe it either points to selective memory or a lack of caring at the time.
From following the inquiry, it looks to me like there was a whole toxic culture within the upper echelons of the Post Office. Weeks ago we heard from Jarnail Singh - a legal lawyer - that he was not deealing with legal matters - one of the other lawyers was doing that side. When asked why, he said he didn't know. I got the impression he wasn't in the right clique. Then another witness agreed when asked if that kind of culture was there, she was very tearful much of the time, she had a hard time of it. Then we heard about the difficult questions she asked and it was obvious why she was excluded from the clique. Susan Crichton "allowed professional integrity" to get in the way of her loyalty to the PO - she was kept out of the board room when her report was due to be given. In the last week we've heard Alice Perkins talking about the Board wanting to get rid of Paula Vennells. It seems some were desperate to tell the Board what they wanted to hear for fear of being excluded from the In-crowd. They are all hiding the hurt from being excluded or fear of exclusion because it sounds like kids in the playground. I think that was behind the Vennells tears.
Hello Dr Paul great videos on Post Office scandal. Just wondered whats your take on the responses when both Van den Bogarde and Rodric Williams told " thats a lie" One just squinted and swivelled in his chair and the other like a robot said "No" In contrast Simon Clarke when asked similar blunt questions got annoyed himself. Anyway keep up the good work. Its compulsive viewing. Cheers Peter
so the three questions I have are when recommendations are made (1) will the legal prosecution capacity be removed from the PO so it has to use the crown prosecutorial service (2) will non disclosure be prohibited (3) will the post office CEO be made responsible for its failures on the basis they get a bonus for its successes
Good questions. I don't think the PO has special prosecuting powers - I might be wrong - I think they are just taking out private prosecutions with the difference being that they set up whole legal teams to do that. The non disclosure stuff is key, and might be what they get in big trouble for - it's already a legal obligation. I think your key question which is not yet answered is whether they will be made responsible for their actions. I think you asked the key question there. Thanks so much for posting. p
Hi Paul, Over recent weeks I have watched quite a number of the Witnesses give their evidence at the POL Inquiry and would agree with your analysis and opinion in this video… also you highlighted the WHY line of questioning from both Jason Beer KC and also Sir Wyn Williams which has allowed everyone to see the truth behind the shallow defence by AvdB and PV.
The one point I quibble with here is that you state vennels was acting as any ceo was expected to. It’s essential to note the PO is funded publicly and has its own independent wing of investigation and prosecution which is wholly unique. I’d say she acted like a private company ceo but that attitude and action had no place in the PO.
Paul. I know nothing a bout Psych but do enjoy watching your musings and learning about the subject. I would like you to do an opinion/thoughts on the evidence to the inquiry today of George Thomson of NFSPM (21/06/2024). I find it quite unbelievable and to me reveals a lot about peoples beliefs and opinions when narcissistic tendencies prevail. Obviously only if if you can/or want to
Thanks so much. I've got been working on my analysis of George's appearance (oh boy, what a shocker) and just trying to fix some technical problems with uploading, but hopefully it will be up on my channel soon :)
So should Van den bogerd. Has anyone noticed that the preponderance of main characters throughout this saga are ex civil servants who are wielding total control?
Isn't it also an example of alienation? Vennels constructed a wall between her "true" self and values - which she expressed through her religious life - and the self she had to inhabit to work for the PO. Williams' question caused her to confront the contrast between these selves.
When you work in the corporate environment, it's substantially clear that any empathy or moral obligation goes out the window. There's a very high certainty that in the corporate world, both Sociopathy and Psychopathy are very prevalent. Some have tried to argue that it's a minority, but I would disagree. As for the inquiry and it's outcomes. I doubt that any prosecution's will come from the CPS and the Police. Often Police investigations into matters like these can take years, and even by then, millions have been spent investigating the claims made. Many of the players in this chess game will be left untouched by the authorities. It's always the case after public inquiries.
@@marybusch6182 similar to democracy. If democracy actually worked, Britain wouldn't be in the mess it's in now. The Greeks created the early form of democracy to prevent revolution in the Pagan/Roman system. It's worked rather well in the modern age by keeping society in check.
Let's all hope Sir Wyn does the right thing in his write-up...and condemns, in the strongest terms possible, not so much the "Post Office and their sub contractors, and, Fujitsu" as organisations, but instead, condemns ALL THOSE in positions to both construct and execute this sickening, evil coverup. They ALL damn well knew what they were doing was 100% wrong. The blame for all this HAS to be laid directly at the individuals implicated, and NOT watered down by blaming 'the system'. Only then can the next phase of this redress begin with all the tools it needs...criminal prosecutions. The danger is that since the government (owner/sole shareholder) is also implicated (and clearly was updated to these bugs and ALL their implications), then additional pressure might be added in order to produce an enquiry outcome that merely ticks the fewest boxes while protecting those who damn well shouldn't be protected. We'll see soon enough how this concludes.
Paul, your analysis on this ongoing scandal is much appreciated. Especially the insights into the behaviors and mindset of the POL senior leadership. Have you or can you give your thoughts on the internal culture of the POL under Vennells?
Thanks for you feedback. Oh, that a good question. I think you'd have to work there to really know what the culture was and all we can do is to draw inferences from what we are seeing in the evidence presented to the inquiry and that is not much to go on. But, given organisational culture is very much driven from the top, I think there's enough evidence to suggest it might have been quite toxic. And, as far as the postmasters were concerned, I reckon it was very toxic, given the nature of the contract they were expected to work under. p
I love the legal dissections that seem so innocuous...until they aren't! Also, Professor, your own whittling away of dross or subtifuge is enlightening, so thank you.
My absolute pleasure 😊 And, sorry for taking so long to respond. 😟I have got way more comments than I had anticipated on my videos so I'm still working my way through them.
ahhhh.... thank you! If good folk like you weren't taking the time to watch my videos, I'd have little to no reason to be making them. So, THANK YOU :)
👍ThankYou Paul. I thought this can not get any worse until I saw Alice Perkins’s “evidence” last week, which had ⚡️effect down my spine. I have been left disturbed by Alice Perkins’s performance to date.
Clearly she was the ‘controlling mind’. In 2011 She knew about the IT system concerns and that it could be a very serious problem. Everything else she did afterwards was to corral the issue and minimise its corporate effect leading right up to the flotation of RM . This was touched upon right at the end, despite her denials that it hadn’t even crossed her mind..when the documents on the Risk disclosure sections of the flotation prospectus showed how much they tried to suppress any mention of Pol IT system problems. Perkins had everything sanitised by Alwen Lyons and Vennells, and then applied pressure on Crichton to nobble the SS report. These 4 women plus Belinda Crowe (another unCivil Servant like Perkins) and Van den Bogarde were vicious, hypocritical, self centred and deceitful.
Interesting, As an ex-Civil Servant in various settings, and working in private sector, it is very difficult to get people to ''behave'' , whatever that means. Standards are selectively applied and informal/ external power structures influence.
Thank you for an interesting analysis. I’m very glad you picked up on the fact that this is what CEOs are ‘required to do’. I think that’s the crux of this awful matter. Company law in UK, and I presume elsewhere, places the onus of maximizing shareholder value upon the firm’s managers and that, unfortunately, is what she and her team did. I think that the way our company law is phrased is at fault. The other important point that has come out only peripherally is that she and the other women involved at senior level were appointed relatively recently to facilitate privatisation in the early 2010s. Maybe they were even chosen as patsies that didn’t know too much. The point behind this observation is that the coalition government at that time were probably pushing extremely hard for the PO to keep a lid on the scandal (which I’m sure everybody knew about) to stop it halting the privatisation or even lowering the uptake of shares. Seen like this, you can’t separate Vennels and van den Bogard from top Conservative and Lib Dem politicians at that time.
I think the revisions to directors responsibilities introduced sometime in the late naughties (can't recall when) is being overlooked here, but the roots of the scandal predated these changes by many years. But I think it would be fair to say that the changes made weren't really a change, but a clarification of duties and responsibilities, possibly as a result of someone knowing the extent to which things had gone to hell, and become common or standard practice.
@@hotrodchris805 Thanks for your comment. I imagine you’re right but what I was getting at is a root and branch revision so that directors have responsibilities towards small suppliers (who often go out on a limb retooling) and society in general, not just to major investors. I expect I’m hopelessly optimistic and naive!
@@hotrodchris805 Would that be the Companies Act 2006? It contains very general obligations to employees and business relation with suppliers, customers and others, but it's not working very well is it? Think water companies, our public transport and budget airlines for example. I read the old Russian Constitution once: it was a lovely document full of very high minded ideals. Words without appropriate oversight and enforcement are rather meaningless. What I would like to see is that companies have to operate more on the shared ownership model of John Lewis. Sort of 'good of the many' rather than 'good of the few', I suppose.
Interesting video. In my experience , senior management are generally driven by "the numbers" (profit, sales, margin etc) and objectively chase the achievement of targets as expressed in numbers . Even "soft" HR issues have become dominated by measurement and reporting numerically. Directors however , while they also have accountability for performance numbers, have a responsibility for the culture of the business and it's values, because these drive the behaviour in all the areas that "fall outside of the numbers". They have the very difficult task of reconciling the achievement of those numbers with working to the values- but that's what they are paid for. Sadly I've noticed that far too many boards in the UK are stuffed with accountants and others who think their job is to be isolated from the "day to day" and focus ruthlessly on "looking after the numbers". This can drive very dispassionate behaviour further down the management tree. The more I look at this enquiry, the more worried I am that it seems to be focussed mostly on the executives who were there when the music stopped and the shitshow that was the Horizon parcel was finally opened up. Sure there is accountability for ignoring the "parcel" for too long. But it was already there long before Vennells et al arrived. It had just grown bigger. Is anyone asking "Why was such a toxic contract (making SPMs accountable for the numbers generated by Horizon) put together? Didn't anyone at the time it was proposed ,ever ask the question "what if the system goes wrong?" Or was a view taken that "well it might go wrong but if it does, we have all the power so they won't be able to do anything" And who set all this up? It's not just about the tech failings of the computer system. It's about how the whole package (contract + techsystem + enforcement system) was put together and , as Wyn Wiliams said "Why?" We need to understand this if anything is to change in governance practices in the UK.
This is such a good analysis. Thank you for taking the time to both put it together and to post it. I agree with your points. The irony is that just as they were in denial that there was a systemic problem with Horizon, they were unaware of teh systemic problem in the PO that was putting them all in harms way ... I don't think they saw it coming. And I completely agree with you on the economic imperative - everything driven by spreadsheets and if it can't be measured and articulated into a KPI it's not valued (that's often, I think, why culture is sidelined because it's harder to measure). I see it happening in higher education where everything has come down to profitability and governance has been twisted to serve that master more than, I fear, to serve the master of public interest and public safety.
@@PaulDuckett Nail on head. Years ago I was lucky enough to end up on the board of a fairly large Private Ltd Company and very lucky to have some very good colleagues, notably an MD who, while driving staff very hard on the performance numbers, took the view that "If I don't look after the workers who else will?" Also a Chairman that was wise enough to insist on the "right thing" being done rather than the one that gave an immediate fix to the numbers. I remember him castigating another Director who proposed delaying supplier payments to suppliers, to fix a cash flow problem "We will need those suppliers when we are stretched in the busy period...how will they service us then?" And you do have these dilemmas to deal with, where there is no "good" answer, only the least shitty one. But I have seen many companies where everything is numbers numbers numbers to the exclusion of almost everything and I believe it is a major problem in UK business. The "numbers" need to be achieved WITHIN the company values , but so often the "company values" are seen as an "extra" for the annual reports rather than something that should be part of every decision.
@@PaulDuckett Nail on head. I've been on a company board -thankfully a good one that really did live the values, but I've seen a lot of companies where it is numbers numbers numbers and where values are a just an "extra" thing for a paragraph in the annual report rather than something to be considered in every decision.
This isn't about professionalism, it is about morality. You will be hard put to find morality in any commercial organizations these days, especially banks and public institutions.
I have only heard evidence of Horizon software glitches and bugs that have discovered supposed shortfalls in the cash balances of Post Office Subpostmasters accounts. I have always thought that a bug in any system might be equally likely to produce errors that introduce money where it doesnt belong. Have there been any instances discovered where there is more cash in the till (so to speak) than there actually should be according to Horizon? I cant believe that all SPM's would just pocket an illegitimate credit balance without raising this with the Post Office.
Really interesting question. Of course, there would be no extra cash in the branch because it woudl be a false reporting but it does raise an interesting question as to what POL did in those cases. So, glad you asked it. p
I don’t think any of them will be prosecuted,they have been exposed in this inquiry and their legal teams will say they will not get a fair trial .where are they going to find a jury that hasn’t listened to to the inquiry
@@Royboy50 : there maybe a perjury charge again'st a few i hope vennels & bogard are' the met are looking hard at this case but seeing the government are 100% shareholders dont hold your breath
Interesting...More interesting would be your analysis of Ms Parson (Post Office chair) More generally, I've found the language and its construct used by those giving evidence to be very 'strange'...Is this normal corporate speak or is it something more sinister?
Yes, just watched her testimony. I my word! There's much to say about it. Will try to put something together as soon as I can. Yes, the language is strange. It's a version of Mandorin, I think - a language perculiar to civil servants. Basically it is a language that gives the appearance that you are saying something, but actually you are saying nothing at all. Politicians speak a version of that too :)
Very interesting. Thanks. ❤ How about the same or similar discussion about Parsons and the Lord (sorry can’t remember his name) on June 12/13/14, if not mistaken. Just an idea about lawyers ‘performing’ too. Especially as they looked like sharks. Edited to ask if you thought these men were directors and hiding behind their own “cloak of professionalism” too?
Good idea. If I can get to it I will. Am a bit stuffed just now with university work - marking coursework. But will do what I can And, thanks for the support :) p
Dear Paul, Firstly thank your expert forensic analysis, 👍 I watched Vennells on the witness stand, and of all her theatricals that were Oscar winning performances, for me there were two moments that stood out and totally exposed her; 1. Tim Moloney KC produced that vital email you highlighted when Vennells literally trashed the SPM's, and that was "the final nail in her coffin".. And.. 2. As you expertly pointed out Paul was Sir Wyn's end of day intervention on Vennells Select Committe apearence brief, That brief in its draft form went backwards and forwards via POL executives emails before Vennnells saw it, and I believe she did not see it till the morning of the Select Committe meeting, and Sir Wyn's "why" question and her silence again totally exposed her,.. I do think Sir Wyn is still seething over POL disrespect to him using his name to hand out bonuses against his instructions, and that came from Vennells herself, so both Sir Wyn and Tim Moloney KC were in effect Vennells Judge & Jury..
“Why”. The most chilling and succinct question that reveals the truth.
Certainly Vennells couldn't think of an answer - or at least an answer that she could give in public.
I suspect she full well knew the real answer - and also knew, she absolutely must not say that out loud.
Yes. It's also the question that a toddler can destroy an adult with ... they just need to repeat it a few times and the adult usually collapses into state of existential dispair :)
Who, what, why, where when, which? Every question needs to start with one of these question words, when asking these lying beggars!
I hope justice will be served on all those involved in this shameful event?
Post grad. Applied Psychologist here, with Post Grad. Counselling qualifications (I never used the degree or them) finding myself as a now semi retired former RM employee of 30 years' service, having taken EVR 13 years ago. I'd had enough!
Watching this moment from the Inquiry's own feed, live, as I have from the off, Sir Wyn's 'Why?', made this one shout out 'Wow!'.
With one word, he had her cornered with no escape, and summed up RMG/POL's stance and projection onto others in this scandal - their default modus operandi down the decades on any negativity - with utmost, impeccable precision.
What has come out in the inquiry does NOT surprise me one iota. It has been all TOO familiar - from diffusion of responsibility, via delusions of grandeur, through to the Peter Principle, to Dilbert Principle, to complete abandonment and dereliction or duty/role.
@@barryscott6222 She gladly went along with Roderick Williams, and Jamal Singh - the two basterds most evil, after Jenkins.
I think Paula's tears were not for the people she harmed, but for herself. It was the realization that she is going to pay for her actions.
The tears weren't real. She never shed an actual tear throughout the whole inquiry.
-I think- Paula's tears were not for the people she harmed, but for herself.
Yes, it did seem like it.
She seems like a very self-righteous person and feels unduly attacked. It's sheers self pity. Not a shred of personal responsibility taken. She will never learn her lesson no matter how much she is made to pay.
@@wildsage6852 And similar to that insane US "God-given 2nd Amendment", this evil scum thinks her righteousness is God-given...given her other hat.
Both of them should be put behind bars ……..they are cold and callous ……..they knew what they did ….and now they are regretting their cover up ! 😢
I respect your opinion. Mine, expressed elsewhere here, is quite different. I would describe Ms vdBogerd as a husk, a shell, inured to any personal feelings, all humanity and imagination drained by a career of working in the suffocating environment of the antiquated (in terms of culture, thinking) post office. As Mr Beer described her, an automaton. Ms Vennells is very immature. She tries hard to seem like a grown-up, but subconsciously she's still a child, very needy of approval. At times she tried to play-act being strong, and tough, and decisive, just like the men around her (I'd love to know more about her father!). The men? Also immature, but a bit better at acting, and very good at not having any emotional intelligence, by virtue of not having any. With Vennells. her whole church thing was a way to be good, because try as she mighatingt, much as she wanted, she wasn't allowed to be good at work, do the right thing, not at the post office. And she couldn't. She too lacks the maturity and emotional intelligence required of a senior corporate manager. Note how the ones who came along after 2011, 2012, 2013, all left pretty quickly. Shit money, shit culture, shit people beneath them who were shit at doing their shit jobs (in head office I mean, not post offices). Tragic, sad, but not cunning or calculating. No one at the post office was smart enough to be cunning or calculating. Same story all over corporate, privatised Britain.
I think the only regret this awful pair of alleged human beings have is getting caught.
MUST be behind bars !!!!
They don't regret the cover up. They regret being found out.
Nice mix of views here. You all seem to agree they are wrong'uns, but the question is what type of wrong'uns are they...?
p
Wynn William's 'Why' absolutely stumped Vennells, and her complete inability to give any answer that would not cast her into a bad light was very telling, as were the tears that came after. Those stifled tears were solely for herself as she knew she'd been caught. Thus exposing exactly what you've said, that she put profit and reputation/'corporate image' above compassion and care for SPM and, ultimately the truth.
Welby wanted her as a bishop. Says it all.
And if she had decided to give her answer the following morning, that would have been even more damning. A stunningly good question.
@@mrhuffler9791@mrhuffler9791 It rather suggests that Williams thought she'd like some time to make one up...
That was absolute genius from Sir wynn Williams.
The rage tears of someone who believes they are too good to get in trouble
Hi Paul. Thanks for this - Sir Wynn's parting shot worked - she fell apart when he asked "Why?". Throughout her testimony, Paula tried to occupy the moral high ground and uses this halo to neutralise or deflect criticism. Not victimhood but sainthood. She got away with it for years - how could such a 'nice' lady be so callous. In the theatre this called "the suspension of disbelief".
The "nice lady" worked for Jeffrey archer, remember the judges remark
She "projected" all the time and played the "victim".... "I would have been thinking...", was used often to explain a behaviour that was at odds with the evidence:.. and they did not match her actual actions. Was she part of the Peter principle? Her actions are completely at odds with her quoted beliefs .. complex personality.
@@peterduce3155 I have yet to see a psychologist on youtube do justice to her testimony - I think it might be 'borderline personality disorder with narcissistic traits' [like Tony Blair] - but I am not an expert - a friend of mine is a trained counsellor and saw Vennells as a possible suicide risk. If it was me, I'd treat the court with contempt - like Elaine Cottam - Paula was very respectful - like a child that is contrite.
Good points. Thanks so much for posting this Robert. It's good to hear your thoughts.
p
Interesting points. Yes, I do think Vennells was/is feeling it now. I think it's less remorse but more the awareness of how much hatred there is being directed towards her. that would give anyone the wobbles.
Are they going to drag this out till all the victims have died ? When are they going to prosecute these swine ? when are they going to pay proper compensation to victims ?
Legally what for all right for what I call barrack room Lawyers whose unfounded allegations could prejudice any criminal cases.
This is thorough because it’s historic. It will allow much swifter prosecutions due to the detailed nature of it and will also hopefully be instrumental in leading ti significant reforms.
The short answer is yes. It is the way like Hillsborough, Grenville and many others before and after.
The sheer volume of evidence being generated now, will take decades to shift through, the televised inquiry will ensure a fair trial will be unable to happen. Good luck finding a jury that have not been biased by the inquiry or TV show.
Justice came on swift wings for the sub post masters, it’ll come by snail mail for the post office bosses, Fujitsu and ministers.
I’ll also ask, why the post office are not suing Fujitsu for a computer program they could manipulate at will. That wasn’t what the post office paid for.
Also, we need to look at why Blair was convinced to accept the Fujitsu company by Japan in the first place, considering how Fujitsu failed with the NHS contract.
That's what comes to mind!
Yes they are! They should’ve paid up a long long time ago to help these postal managers whose lives have been ruined.!
Such a small word ( WHY ) And yet it goes right to the heart of this .The silence was deafening.
Yes, it was :)
p
This is really an excellent, thoughtful analysis. It's easy to think in terms of individuals having no care for the damage they cause, but I think you're right in highlighting something much deeper going on, in terms of the destructive mindset visible in so many corporate institutions that enabled such a dehumanization of the SPOs with such catastrophic results. I've watched quite a lot of the PO Horizon enquiry sessions and much of it is terrifyingly familiar, seeing the pressure exerted within an institution to defend that institution against any perceived threat, to belittle and minimize any criticism or challenge, and the way in which people internalise that ethos as doing their job in a professional way. Sir Wyn's question of 'why?' should be a wakeup call and something that people ask themselves in any action they put their name to.
Thanks so much for your posting. Really liked your insight on this - I think the public anger is coming from that place or recognition - we have seen this type of behaviour in our own workplaces.
p
[2:39] Paul Vennells made a point of faking emotion at points where she was facing a particularly difficult question. You'll notice she's very distraught but manages to insert the idea that people don't necessarily commit suicide on the basis of one incident such as being bullied by the post office who demand huge amounts of money including money lost in a violent robbery where the sub-postmaster was injured. It's one of the most despicable shows of callousness ever.
thanks for posting :) I think a lot of people would agree with you.
Totally agree with this observation
Vennells through her tears couldn't wait to get out that there were other factors in the death. In other words, not our fault
Yes she was disgusting. That statement tells you everything including that the father was an open and decent person who couldn’t possibly consider how she would use his own words against his son who just died because of her.
Yes her plan faux regrets
Yep, they might be worried that they could face corporate manslaughter unless they throw that doubt in.
Paula Vennels came across all “Head Girl” - superficially confident, righteous and somewhat bumptious. But as one of the lawyers said during cross examination, the mask started to slip. And once the real, unedifying Paula started to emerge, we got the tears of a child crying because they’ve been found out.
Yep, I got that sense to. There's a swagger, a inflated self confidence. And when it comes crashing down ... oh boy, it makes a right mess!
Thanks for your comment. I thought it was great.
p
So right. I imagine she says “jolly” a lot, straight out of an Enid Blyton book. Talking of a child, Alice Perkins, once challenged, reminded me of the child who was never told “no”. She was nonplussed at being “spoken to that way”. They’re all just overgrown children… running our country… the heart sinks.
Beer showed more concern for her than she did for her victims.
Is the look Mr Beer gives to his left every now and again a code for gottcha the itch ?
Actually beer was completely deft in his approach. There are standards he is upholding for all as she should have done for the poor subbies she shafted.
Beer had no time for her antics. He was just conducting himself correctly by acting as if he believed her fake distress.
Yep, he did. Well spotted.
p
I don't think he was concerned at all. It's a very good technique to use to put people in a place where they will tell you more if they think you are on there side. Police interviewers use it all the time.
Excellent points Dr.
The Inquiry has laid bare the gulf between the anodyne and soulless (indeed in some cases, even callous) behaviour of the Post Office's Corporate Masters, and the subpostmasters who have acted with integrity both during the scandal as well as the recent Inquiry.
On those rare occasions when Rev Vennells or van den Bogard have acted teary, it appeared to
me as though their "sadness" was directed inwards towards themselves, rather than towards their victims.
One could make a cheap remark about Rev Vennells has singularly failed to show any of the supposed character and empathy her clerical position demands.
Her thirty pieces of silver was £5.1Million.
Nicely put. Thanks for the posting.
Very good. Thank you. As bad as all this is, even worse was the Archbishop of Canterbury's defence of his candidature of Vennells for the Bishopric of London. Perhaps it is time that the Church of England fell into your sights.
I've always said that!! The Anglican church has questions to answer!!!!
Yep, I agree
p
The Archbishop of Canterbury is another head of another criminal “Camorra”
Hiya Paul - I am an Irish guy who is finding the Post Office scandal compelling - to say the least. Recently, I stumbled across your you tube channel. It’s a must. A real companion piece, that is helping me navigate my way through the mire.
I’m not for a second going to suggest smugly that this couldn’t happen over here. But I also think on the other hand, your antiquated class system is being exposed as a central player in all of this.
The people at the top (people of the cloth, eminent Lords & Ladies Haw Haw etc) never for a second considered that those little minion sub postmasters, could be anything other than guilty.
Keep it goin’
Noel.
Thanks so much Noel. Yes, I think you are spot on. THere are lots of issues around social class in all of this. And, sorry about my terribly late response - I am still catching up with all the comments.
I think in both cases they responded like they did because that was their way to defend themselves. In one case was: "I just did what I was told", in the other: " I'm sorry, I was careless, but this is in the past...."
Yep, good comment. Thanks so much for posting. You make a good point :)
The Nuremberg defence: it didn't work there, either.
Both thew Post Office Senior and Local managements have bee feral for many years, unfair disapplinary practices, failed health and safety practices. i can even recall a case where an employee won a financial settllement in a health and safety case, the P.O. appealed, the case went back to court and the amount awarded was doubled by the judge. This is what happens when an organisation like the P.O is allowed to continue unchecked, bucket loads of public money wasted, and lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. It's happening now. Sunak has set aside more public money for compensation when it is Fujitsu (strangely quiet) who should be footing the bill. They sold a system under false pretences paid for by public money, and then kept hidden the fact that it was remotely accessible from an external source, and did not disclose a directory full of known faults until their arm was twisted. The Post Office have continued to persecute Postmasters even when they knew the system was faulty. The Postmasters deserve justice for this but, lets not ever forget, or belittle the part played by Fujitsu and it's software that brought all this about.
Excellent points William. Thanks for taking the time to make these points. Much appreciated
p
its
Did Paula Vennells put profit above everything else? Didn't the Post Office on at least one occasion choose to "spend" £300k in legal fees to recover £25k?
ask many public bodies, they freely waste such legal cost sums, yet none of the decision makers face any consequence for their effectual waste.
Thank you, I stand corrected as it was before her time.
Yep, I didn't know the answer, so many thanks mollienight for being on top of this.
Thank you, Paul. I like what you're doing here, simply taking 10 minutes or so to focus on 3 or 4 key elements and providing time for thought. It would be great to see more like this. I appreciate the time it takes to construct such a video, but they expose the problem for later consideration.
PS. Put your role and qualification, Dr., in your intro piece on the youtube channel. There are many fake YT lecturers out there 😮
Thanks, that's lovely feedback and yes, I will keep pluggin away at this and try and make some more videos. Should have another one coming out sometime today :) Good point about putting my qualifications on my channel. I'll do that, thanks :)
What strikes me the most, is they went from disinterest in the issue, to realization of the seriousness of the issue, to all hands on deck to contain and sweep everything under the rug with as much force as possible.
Thanks for posting. Nice summary of their response. You captured it nicely.
p
What a pair of pure counts!
Don't get me started on counts
The Germans might say gold scheiser
I like it.....😊😊ha ha!!!!
Thanks goodness your spellchecker didn't try to correct your spelling :) If only somone had told them to shut the front door. :)
12:06 Coming from a perspective of almost 40 years of software development: Fujitsu ought to lay open the complete source code history of Horizon and all their tools accompanying its daily transactions/corrections/accounting. It's the only way to have transparency in our data-driven economy. Very rare exceptions aside, same holds for _any_ software.
Sounds very sensible to me. I am an advocate of open source software. The software space looks to me like It's a space that is still lacking proper, serious, grown up ethical and political thinking through ... social media debates politicians are involved in right now are low grade and retrograde and public debates seem more driven by investor interests in silicon valley who promote fear and hype and all that stuff seems so far away from the type of discussion that needs to be had regarding software development.. It shoudl have happened long before the latest hype cycle around AI. But, I am an amateur observer on this, so may have it very wrong.
The SPMS & all affected by the prosecutions seem to me to have been held in total disregard and even now are considered as being collateral damage while these POL employees involved in carrying out and ignoring the wrongful conduct fought/still fight, to protect their own professional and personal positions. CONTEMPTIBLE behaviour.
Great to hear from you on this anda great posting, Yes, collateral damage indeed.
p
Thank you. First time viewing for me of your channel, excellent break down of what was going on. Loved the finish with Sir WYN.
Thank you for such lovely feedback. Yes, Sir Wyn was fab
p
The NDA was paid in installments to hold over the family to remain silent over the behaviour of the Post Office. That is a very relevant detail 8n his questioning. It brings me joy that he did not appear to react to her W W tears that is so often weaponised.
Yes, good detail. thanks for posting :)
Good analysis. It’s still very difficult to not be outraged by the PO actions. I don’t even live in the UK but this makes me so angry.
Yep, I don't live in the UK anymore either and I am still feeling angry at all this. Thanks for posting :)
p
I saw this on the day. The judge was brilliant
I agree :)
p
Excellent piece. Thank you for posting.
My pleasure!
There should have been a criminal investigation into their conduct.
There will be, but the inquiry has to conclude first.
Sir Wyn has given warnings to certain individuals about their rights around 'self-incrimination' at the start of their giving evidence because they are likely to be the focus of criminal investigations post-inquiry.
The Met is investigating now.
@mollienight I hope we can apply for her extradition,thanks the information.
@@meganm1074 Why does that particular piece of info not reassure me.
Thanks everyone, really intersting thread. thank you for posting.
p
Very insightful analysis. I have watched nearly every episode of the inquiry and I can only recall 3 or 4 people (giving evidence) who showed they were people with integrity. I must say Paul that your analysis should become compulsory viewing for everyone intending to work in any public or private organisation and distills the best take away lesson from the post office debacle. Thankyou
Many thanks. I can't recall many folk with integrity either. Quite telling, hey?
thanks for posting :)
Van den Bogerd has a face chiselled out of pure granite, with a heart to match. Deserves a big helping of 'porridge', along with Vennells, but I will be surprised if there is a single prosecution at the end of this Post Office Scandal Inquiry.
Let's hope you are wrong :)
thanks for posting :)
Thank you for posting this. It really helps me to understand what is going on here.
Thanks for your lovely feedback. It helps motivate me to make more videos :)
p
This was a delightful surprise and Paul's analysis of these reprehensible women, who evidently and clearly gave not the slightest concern either for the people they were intentionally hounding or indeed the organisation they were very generously rewarded by.
I refer to the Post Office, as distinct from the Subpostmasters, because if a prosecution of my staff was taking place at a rate of one every week for fourteen years i.e. well in excess of 700 in total, and I was supposed to be managing the PO in a professional manner, which of course includes a reasonable degree of objectivity, then surely surely wouldn't I be commissioning a senior member of my generously salaried staff to investigate and prepare a detailed report as to why this very overt set of circumstances was occurring.
Sir Wyn Williams asked that simple question, didn't he?
Thanks, glad it was a nice surprise.
Great posting. you've made some excellent points here. Yes, nice simple question from Sir Wyn, the simple questions are often the most effective.
p
This is like comparing apples with apples, but both of them are rotten to the very core.
thanks for posting :)
In a way, the veils are now more numerous, drawn so as to form multiple individual cubicles of amnesia. At least, that's what we've seen repeatedly claimed. Behind those veils are other curtains of obliquity, tapestries scrupulously embroidered with "nobodytoldme". All these fabrics are now torn and tattered, but we are still some way from seeing them entirely torn down.
I love how you wrote this. Poetic. nicely captures things. Thank you.
p
@@PaulDuckett The origin, sadly, is more drill lyrics than poetry.
Very interesting commentary, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.
Very observant assessment - thank you I agree with your views on ‘professionalism’ - sadly these attributes are lacking in most organisations
Yes, sadly I agree. I'm part of the problem ... academics like me are the ones churning out these professionals from our universities. We fail to give them a sufficient moral education ... I think we likely focus on teaching them the wrong stuff :{
Really enjoyed your video. Thank you for your observations and insight.
Thanks so much for your feedback. I really appreciate it :)
p
Cut out this person did this and that person should have done that they are guilty moneys lost and reparation should be awarded. The people from post office management should be jailed and the moneys lost reparation should be paid before the end of this year. All MPs that where told about this should be sacked with non pensions for aiding and abetting the post office.
Harsh but fair.
Thanks for you posting. Great to hear your view on this. You capture the public anger nicely.
p
Are you Welsh perhaps? I feel Sir Wyn's soft-spoken saber at my neck 🙂
Love what you do man - give us more 🙂
Not welsh, but spent lots of time in teh north west of england, so might have picked up a lilt (I am quite shallow!) 😊And, sorry for taking so long to respond. 😟I have got way more comments than I had anticipated on my videos so I'm still working my way through them.
Thank you - these videos are so helpful.
That's such lovely feedback. 😊Thank you so much and I'm so sorry for taking so long to reply!
I have watched the majority of these sessions and one thing has struck me. The post office seems to have employed a whole group of unfeeling harridans.
You mean ‘professionals’!
@@Sujowi no, Harridans.
Post office tend to be like that ...Half the time you go in get met with a proper "karen"
It seems so, hey?
They hire each other.
The last question from the Chair is like shooting a fish in a barrel. Vanilla (sic) is struck dumb. No wriggle room. No word salad. No faux emotion. Brilliant.
Well, that sums things up rather nicely😊
There did appear to be a group of controlling women at the centre of the Post Office hierarchy, surrounded by a lower group of compliant and hapless men. The women were ruthless, aggressive and conniving. It was almost as if these women were trying to be macho
They absolutely were. It's a hormone thing. Women really aren't good at this level, anywhere.
There were men in the leadership positions earlier in the scandal.
@@meganm1074 My point exactly
But who's instructions did they follow. ( WHY ) .
I can't help but detect a wiff of "Gay Predijuce" in this rely.
Is it just me?
Love your fade out music - reminds me of something cosy from my childhood
- Thought for the day - or Wooden Tops theme (Watch with mother)
Ahhhh yes, my hope was that it would soothe the nerves.... if not your's then at the very least mine 😊👍👍
The corporation's vast SIZE was a huge factor for their ongoing failures - group think, job preservation, greed, evilness, spider's web of off-set decision making, not questioning decisions, not probing technical answers, blindly accepting ability of others, expecting others to bear responsibility/ initiative, senior management secrecy and incompetence for 20 years.
Well, that sums things up rather nicely😊 Thanks so much for posting And, sorry for taking so long to respond. 😟I have got way more comments than I had anticipated on my videos so I'm still working my way through them.
Thank you Paul. That was really, really useful to have your insight and analysis of how and why these people conducted themselves in such surprising and odd ways (to most of us at least). I hadn’t spotted it the first time around, but watching back the moment after Jason Beer tells Paula Vennells to compose herself before continuing her evidence - Yes, you’re quite right he didn’t show any empathy (and frankly nor did most people watching Vennells’ performance feel much towards her either) and I cannot blame him for that; but what I hadn’t noticed the first time around was what his facial expressions and body language was telling us in the moment after he’d finished speaking. By all means look at it again, but he almost rolls his eyes in contempt or disgust at the sheer audacity of this woman, who had done so much harm to others now trying to play a caring, principled ‘human’ being that had ‘only ever’ been driven by what she ‘thought was the right thing to do’ 🤮
@mollienight Yes, it’s amazing just how much you can say with just the eyes, and in some cases, so much more effectively than with any words you could choose. Though it did feel as though Jason Beer’s reaction there was totally genuine; not part of the carefully crafted ‘performance’ (in the sense Paul uses that word 😉). Have worked with many highly skilled barristers over the years and I must say that, whilst it’s perfectly natural to want to see a delivery that ‘really gives it to them’ (when they deserve a good pasting), it’s almost always far, far more effective when put calmly, with a seemingly understated delivery like that which Jason Beer uses most of the time. I think he’s truly remarkable. Forget their names, but the 2 KC’s leading the COVID Enquiry had a similar, deceptively ‘understated’ style of delivery too 🙌
On that subject, can’t wait to see them dismantle Matt Hancock and his cronies over the PPE contracts - Had briefly wondered whether Sunak called the snap election in part to prevent the full truth about their corruption on that being laid bare in the lead up to an election in November! That would have destroyed what little remaining support there was for them - though currently looks like they’re doing a pretty good job of dismantling their reputation without the need for any assistance
@mollienight No, don’t apologise for being negative. Never apologise for telling the truth!
Yes, sadly we’ve all become so used to politicians (and others - but especially the populist, right wing) lying to us all, feeding off fear and hatred, so much so that it’s numbed our senses of how important the truth actually is.
Sometimes it’s gaslighting, other times the audience who support populist politicians are knowing complicit (as are the media) in going along with and repeating these lies, until everyone takes them, unquestioned, as the new “truth”. Then everyone shrugs their shoulders and says “they’re all the same” and “you can’t trust politicians”.
The truth is VITALLY IMPORTANT if we are to maintain faith in and uphold the institutions that prevent democracy being undermined. We need to stand up for the importance of truth and demand better standards in public life, instead of putting up with self-entitled, sociopathic liars like Boris-F’ing-Johnson, just because he can charm fools into allowing him to get away with whatever toxic sh@t he wants to pedal, just to get to where he wants - without ever caring about who gets harmed in the process. Trump is the same, just with a bigger audience 🤮
Thanks so much Stephen,
Yes, I had spotted Beer's death stare. I made sure to keep it in. Glad you spotted it. I think a lot of people missed when it first broadcast.
p
Great analysis! Hope there are more to come. Would love you cover Alice Perkins.
Thanks for you lovely feedback. I made a video on the Alice Perkins apology just for you ... posted it a couple of hourse ago. hope you enjoy it :)
p
@@PaulDuckett you're a legend!
Interesting to hear ex lawyer or whatever saying the ones that had been in seniority for a long time were the ones who were so against anything said about Horizon. Bonuses perhaps. I reckon Angela and Paula were behind all this. False tears .
Oh' yes bonus protection not horizon
Nice point. Thanks for posting :)
Excellent and interesting analysis. Thank you
Glad it was helpful! Thanks so much for your encouragement
p
They were both performing as they (as had all the PO staff witnesses ) all had been well schooled as to how to behave. It is no coincidence that they all have “no memory “of things they must have some memory of !
It's called the reagan defense. Or the MacArthur defense.
Thanks for posting this. :) I totally sympathise with your view on this but I have mixed feelings about it. I would struggle remembering things 10 years ago, but I think that sometimes it is a cover. Also, I can remember meetings 10 years ago that were consequential so maybe it either points to selective memory or a lack of caring at the time.
Very good short and sweet thank you😊
Thanks so much
p
That last question by the Chairman, really stumped Vennells. She obviously was not prepared or rehearsed for that simple question "Why?"
Yep, it did. Glad you noticed it too :)
p
From following the inquiry, it looks to me like there was a whole toxic culture within the upper echelons of the Post Office.
Weeks ago we heard from Jarnail Singh - a legal lawyer - that he was not deealing with legal matters - one of the other lawyers was doing that side. When asked why, he said he didn't know. I got the impression he wasn't in the right clique. Then another witness agreed when asked if that kind of culture was there, she was very tearful much of the time, she had a hard time of it. Then we heard about the difficult questions she asked and it was obvious why she was excluded from the clique.
Susan Crichton "allowed professional integrity" to get in the way of her loyalty to the PO - she was kept out of the board room when her report was due to be given.
In the last week we've heard Alice Perkins talking about the Board wanting to get rid of Paula Vennells.
It seems some were desperate to tell the Board what they wanted to hear for fear of being excluded from the In-crowd.
They are all hiding the hurt from being excluded or fear of exclusion because it sounds like kids in the playground.
I think that was behind the Vennells tears.
Yes, I think this is really interesting. Almost a bit of tribalism going on. Nice observations. Thanks for posting.
p
How very interesting. Thank you. Performance and theatre... and a clear distinction between Van der Bogard and Vennells.
Thanks so much for your encouragement. I really does help encourage me to continue. Nice to know I am not shouting into the void!
p
Hello Dr Paul great videos on Post Office scandal. Just wondered whats your take on the responses when both Van den Bogarde and Rodric Williams told " thats a lie" One just squinted and swivelled in his chair and the other like a robot said "No" In contrast Simon Clarke when asked similar blunt questions got annoyed himself. Anyway keep up the good work. Its compulsive viewing. Cheers Peter
Gosh, great questions. not sure I could answer in a comment, and not sure I know. But it is an excellent piece of observation. Well done 😊
Really relaxing listening to you very Educational.
That's so lovely to hear. That dream feedback for me - I love the idea of a relaxing education.
Thanks so much for your encouragement.
p
Thank you for an excellent commentary
That's lovely of you. Thank you
p
Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.🙂
That's so nice of you to post that. Thank you so much.
p
so the three questions I have are when recommendations are made (1) will the legal prosecution capacity be removed from the PO so it has to use the crown prosecutorial service (2) will non disclosure be prohibited (3) will the post office CEO be made responsible for its failures on the basis they get a bonus for its successes
Good questions. I don't think the PO has special prosecuting powers - I might be wrong - I think they are just taking out private prosecutions with the difference being that they set up whole legal teams to do that. The non disclosure stuff is key, and might be what they get in big trouble for - it's already a legal obligation. I think your key question which is not yet answered is whether they will be made responsible for their actions. I think you asked the key question there. Thanks so much for posting.
p
Hi Paul, Over recent weeks I have watched quite a number of the Witnesses give their evidence at the POL Inquiry and would agree with your analysis and opinion in this video… also you highlighted the WHY line of questioning from both Jason Beer KC and also Sir Wyn Williams which has allowed everyone to see the truth behind the shallow defence by AvdB and PV.
Thanks so much for your posting. Yep, the simple question 'Why' has proven devastating to them! Well spotted.
p
very interesting analysis thank you
Thanks for you lovely feedback p
The one point I quibble with here is that you state vennels was acting as any ceo was expected to. It’s essential to note the PO is funded publicly and has its own independent wing of investigation and prosecution which is wholly unique. I’d say she acted like a private company ceo but that attitude and action had no place in the PO.
Yes, I would very much agree with on on that point.
p
What an excellent insightful video. Thank you. Just subscribed
Thanks so much for your encouragement ... and for your sub :)
Both much appreciated.
p
Paul. I know nothing a bout Psych but do enjoy watching your musings and learning about the subject. I would like you to do an opinion/thoughts on the evidence to the inquiry today of George Thomson of NFSPM (21/06/2024). I find it quite unbelievable and to me reveals a lot about peoples beliefs and opinions when narcissistic tendencies prevail. Obviously only if if you can/or want to
Thanks so much. I've got been working on my analysis of George's appearance (oh boy, what a shocker) and just trying to fix some technical problems with uploading, but hopefully it will be up on my channel soon :)
Wonderful acting, Vennels should get an Oscar
So should Van den bogerd. Has anyone noticed that the preponderance of main characters throughout this saga are ex civil servants who are wielding total control?
@@pdubya4690 They are maggots who solely served their own position. Not that they are any different to 99% of civil servants in the UK and dominions.
I said exactly the same on Charlie's chat.
Vennells will retreat into the protection "not being fit to stand trial" when charges are finally ready to be brought against them.
@@brianlopez8855 Make sure then that you vote for Nigel Ferage; change is needed
Isn't it also an example of alienation? Vennels constructed a wall between her "true" self and values - which she expressed through her religious life - and the self she had to inhabit to work for the PO. Williams' question caused her to confront the contrast between these selves.
Really interesting analysis. thanks for posting :)
When you work in the corporate environment, it's substantially clear that any empathy or moral obligation goes out the window.
There's a very high certainty that in the corporate world, both Sociopathy and Psychopathy are very prevalent. Some have tried to argue that it's a minority, but I would disagree.
As for the inquiry and it's outcomes. I doubt that any prosecution's will come from the CPS and the Police. Often Police investigations into matters like these can take years, and even by then, millions have been spent investigating the claims made.
Many of the players in this chess game will be left untouched by the authorities. It's always the case after public inquiries.
Sadly true remember. Justice delayed is justice denied.
@@marybusch6182 similar to democracy. If democracy actually worked, Britain wouldn't be in the mess it's in now. The Greeks created the early form of democracy to prevent revolution in the Pagan/Roman system. It's worked rather well in the modern age by keeping society in check.
Great posting. Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. There is something more broadly wrong here about how things are done.
p
Let's all hope Sir Wyn does the right thing in his write-up...and condemns, in the strongest terms possible, not so much the "Post Office and their sub contractors, and, Fujitsu" as organisations, but instead, condemns ALL THOSE in positions to both construct and execute this sickening, evil coverup. They ALL damn well knew what they were doing was 100% wrong. The blame for all this HAS to be laid directly at the individuals implicated, and NOT watered down by blaming 'the system'. Only then can the next phase of this redress begin with all the tools it needs...criminal prosecutions.
The danger is that since the government (owner/sole shareholder) is also implicated (and clearly was updated to these bugs and ALL their implications), then additional pressure might be added in order to produce an enquiry outcome that merely ticks the fewest boxes while protecting those who damn well shouldn't be protected. We'll see soon enough how this concludes.
Well put Chris. thanks for posting this.
p
Thank you Dr Duckett.
Andrew.
My absolute pleasure 😊
Crocodile tears from Vennells in my view Paul and the “why” question from Sir Wyn and the silence afterwards really did say it all.
I think you are absolutely spot on in your analysis.
Thanks so much for your encouragement.
p
Well done! 👏👏👏
Thank you! 😃
p
Paul, your analysis on this ongoing scandal is much appreciated. Especially the insights into the behaviors and mindset of the POL senior leadership. Have you or can you give your thoughts on the internal culture of the POL under Vennells?
Thanks for you feedback. Oh, that a good question. I think you'd have to work there to really know what the culture was and all we can do is to draw inferences from what we are seeing in the evidence presented to the inquiry and that is not much to go on. But, given organisational culture is very much driven from the top, I think there's enough evidence to suggest it might have been quite toxic. And, as far as the postmasters were concerned, I reckon it was very toxic, given the nature of the contract they were expected to work under.
p
Excellent observations. You tell the whole sorry story in a clear way. 👍🏻
That's lovely feedback. Thank you so much.
p
I love the legal dissections that seem so innocuous...until they aren't! Also, Professor, your own whittling away of dross or subtifuge is enlightening, so thank you.
Awwww, that is very kind. Glad you found it useful :)
p
Excellent summary - thank you & The killer question "why?"
Thank you :)
And thanks for posting :)
Badass question at the end. Brilliant!
Glad you liked it 😊Thanks so much for posting
Thank you once again.
My absolute pleasure 😊 And, sorry for taking so long to respond. 😟I have got way more comments than I had anticipated on my videos so I'm still working my way through them.
Thank you
ahhhh.... thank you! If good folk like you weren't taking the time to watch my videos, I'd have little to no reason to be making them. So, THANK YOU :)
Everything is with hindsight with this lot. Why didn't they sort it at the time?
Good point, thanks for posting
:)
p
👍ThankYou Paul. I thought this can not get any worse until I saw Alice Perkins’s “evidence” last week, which had ⚡️effect down my spine. I have been left disturbed by Alice Perkins’s performance to date.
Clearly she was the ‘controlling mind’. In 2011 She knew about the IT system concerns and that it could be a very serious problem. Everything else she did afterwards was to corral the issue and minimise its corporate effect leading right up to the flotation of RM . This was touched upon right at the end, despite her denials that it hadn’t even crossed her mind..when the documents on the Risk disclosure sections of the flotation prospectus showed how much they tried to suppress any mention of Pol IT system problems. Perkins had everything sanitised by Alwen Lyons and Vennells, and then applied pressure on Crichton to nobble the SS report. These 4 women plus Belinda Crowe (another unCivil Servant like Perkins) and Van den Bogarde were vicious, hypocritical, self centred and deceitful.
My pleasure. :) Yes, it had the same effect on me!
p
She won't end up in prison but I wish there was some way she could be made to pay for her crimes.
Yes, I am with you on that.
p
I'M SORRY THESE TWO WOMEN SHOULD BE IN PRISON AND BE STRIPPED OF EVERYTHING THAT THEY HOLD PRECIOUS
I completely get where you are coming from. I don't think you are alone in thinking this.
p
12:40. Brilliant 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Well done Sir Wyn 🤝🤝🤝🤝
Thanks so much. Yes, Sir Wyn was a superstart :)
Thank you for your analysis.
Thanks so much for you thank you :)
Interesting, As an ex-Civil Servant in various settings, and working in private sector, it is very difficult to get people to ''behave'' , whatever that means. Standards are selectively applied and informal/ external power structures influence.
Sadly I have the same experience working in the unviersity sector :(
p
Thank you for an interesting analysis. I’m very glad you picked up on the fact that this is what CEOs are ‘required to do’. I think that’s the crux of this awful matter. Company law in UK, and I presume elsewhere, places the onus of maximizing shareholder value upon the firm’s managers and that, unfortunately, is what she and her team did. I think that the way our company law is phrased is at fault.
The other important point that has come out only peripherally is that she and the other women involved at senior level were appointed relatively recently to facilitate privatisation in the early 2010s. Maybe they were even chosen as patsies that didn’t know too much. The point behind this observation is that the coalition government at that time were probably pushing extremely hard for the PO to keep a lid on the scandal (which I’m sure everybody knew about) to stop it halting the privatisation or even lowering the uptake of shares. Seen like this, you can’t separate Vennels and van den Bogard from top Conservative and Lib Dem politicians at that time.
I think the revisions to directors responsibilities introduced sometime in the late naughties (can't recall when) is being overlooked here, but the roots of the scandal predated these changes by many years. But I think it would be fair to say that the changes made weren't really a change, but a clarification of duties and responsibilities, possibly as a result of someone knowing the extent to which things had gone to hell, and become common or standard practice.
@@hotrodchris805 Thanks for your comment. I imagine you’re right but what I was getting at is a root and branch revision so that directors have responsibilities towards small suppliers (who often go out on a limb retooling) and society in general, not just to major investors. I expect I’m hopelessly optimistic and naive!
@@andrewwebb9426 the changes I referred to did exactly that and more! It felt quite bizarre at the time to be honest!
And Labour as it was Blair's govt that accepted the software
@@hotrodchris805 Would that be the Companies Act 2006? It contains very general obligations to employees and business relation with suppliers, customers and others, but it's not working very well is it? Think water companies, our public transport and budget airlines for example.
I read the old Russian Constitution once: it was a lovely document full of very high minded ideals. Words without appropriate oversight and enforcement are rather meaningless.
What I would like to see is that companies have to operate more on the shared ownership model of John Lewis. Sort of 'good of the many' rather than 'good of the few', I suppose.
Interesting video. In my experience , senior management are generally driven by "the numbers" (profit, sales, margin etc) and objectively chase the achievement of targets as expressed in numbers . Even "soft" HR issues have become dominated by measurement and reporting numerically. Directors however , while they also have accountability for performance numbers, have a responsibility for the culture of the business and it's values, because these drive the behaviour in all the areas that "fall outside of the numbers". They have the very difficult task of reconciling the achievement of those numbers with working to the values- but that's what they are paid for. Sadly I've noticed that far too many boards in the UK are stuffed with accountants and others who think their job is to be isolated from the "day to day" and focus ruthlessly on "looking after the numbers". This can drive very dispassionate behaviour further down the management tree. The more I look at this enquiry, the more worried I am that it seems to be focussed mostly on the executives who were there when the music stopped and the shitshow that was the Horizon parcel was finally opened up. Sure there is accountability for ignoring the "parcel" for too long. But it was already there long before Vennells et al arrived. It had just grown bigger. Is anyone asking "Why was such a toxic contract (making SPMs accountable for the numbers generated by Horizon) put together? Didn't anyone at the time it was proposed ,ever ask the question "what if the system goes wrong?" Or was a view taken that "well it might go wrong but if it does, we have all the power so they won't be able to do anything" And who set all this up? It's not just about the tech failings of the computer system. It's about how the whole package (contract + techsystem + enforcement system) was put together and , as Wyn Wiliams said "Why?" We need to understand this if anything is to change in governance practices in the UK.
This is such a good analysis. Thank you for taking the time to both put it together and to post it. I agree with your points. The irony is that just as they were in denial that there was a systemic problem with Horizon, they were unaware of teh systemic problem in the PO that was putting them all in harms way ... I don't think they saw it coming. And I completely agree with you on the economic imperative - everything driven by spreadsheets and if it can't be measured and articulated into a KPI it's not valued (that's often, I think, why culture is sidelined because it's harder to measure). I see it happening in higher education where everything has come down to profitability and governance has been twisted to serve that master more than, I fear, to serve the master of public interest and public safety.
@@PaulDuckett Nail on head. Years ago I was lucky enough to end up on the board of a fairly large Private Ltd Company and very lucky to have some very good colleagues, notably an MD who, while driving staff very hard on the performance numbers, took the view that "If I don't look after the workers who else will?" Also a Chairman that was wise enough to insist on the "right thing" being done rather than the one that gave an immediate fix to the numbers. I remember him castigating another Director who proposed delaying supplier payments to suppliers, to fix a cash flow problem "We will need those suppliers when we are stretched in the busy period...how will they service us then?" And you do have these dilemmas to deal with, where there is no "good" answer, only the least shitty one. But I have seen many companies where everything is numbers numbers numbers to the exclusion of almost everything and I believe it is a major problem in UK business. The "numbers" need to be achieved WITHIN the company values , but so often the "company values" are seen as an "extra" for the annual reports rather than something that should be part of every decision.
@@PaulDuckett Nail on head. I've been on a company board -thankfully a good one that really did live the values, but I've seen a lot of companies where it is numbers numbers numbers and where values are a just an "extra" thing for a paragraph in the annual report rather than something to be considered in every decision.
Thank you Paul, that was really interesting.
Thanks so much for your lovely feedback p
Love this analysis
Thank you so much. That's lovely feedback. It keeps me motivated to carry on with my channel.
p
This isn't about professionalism, it is about morality. You will be hard put to find morality in any commercial organizations these days, especially banks and public institutions.
They wouldn't even know how to spell it.
@@rollyunicorn For bloody sure! Politicians and civil servants are the root of all evil these days
You're correct, the "professional" thing to do was to ask why they had employed so many dishonest people, or could it be they were totally wrong?
@@johnclarke-vs9qe You miss the point. It is not professional, it is moral and there was a total absence of it.
I don't miss the point. It was both the professional AND moral thing to do.i.e the "correct" thing!
the witches that put the stitches in the Horizon stitch up of the postmasters?
You’re welcome. Thanks for your channel, to which I now subscribe. Humans being human is such an interesting topic.
Welcome aboard!
p
Excellent analysis.
Thanks so much. Encouragement like that keeps me going :)
p
I have only heard evidence of Horizon software glitches and bugs that have discovered supposed shortfalls in the cash balances of Post Office Subpostmasters accounts. I have always thought that a bug in any system might be equally likely to produce errors that introduce money where it doesnt belong. Have there been any instances discovered where there is more cash in the till (so to speak) than there actually should be according to Horizon? I cant believe that all SPM's would just pocket an illegitimate credit balance without raising this with the Post Office.
Really interesting question. Of course, there would be no extra cash in the branch because it woudl be a false reporting but it does raise an interesting question as to what POL did in those cases. So, glad you asked it.
p
So how does the prosecution proceed? The veil of “professionalism” will continue to serve Vennells and her cohorts well against accountability.
It most likely will come down to corporate liability no one will be held at fault ......
I don’t think any of them will be prosecuted,they have been exposed in this inquiry and their legal teams will say they will not get a fair trial .where are they going to find a jury that hasn’t listened to to the inquiry
@@Royboy50 : there maybe a perjury charge again'st a few i hope vennels & bogard are' the met are looking hard at this case but seeing the government are 100% shareholders dont hold your breath
There may be enough evidence for charges of interfering with the course of justice.
Some great responses here from your fellow watchers. Thanks so much for posting :)
Interesting...More interesting would be your analysis of Ms Parson (Post Office chair)
More generally, I've found the language and its construct used by those giving evidence to be very 'strange'...Is this normal corporate speak or is it something more sinister?
Parson is married to former Foreign Secretary and War Criminal Jack Straw.
I heard it called corporate waffle lots of words with no content
@@leso204 with a side of word salad
Yes, just watched her testimony. I my word! There's much to say about it. Will try to put something together as soon as I can. Yes, the language is strange. It's a version of Mandorin, I think - a language perculiar to civil servants. Basically it is a language that gives the appearance that you are saying something, but actually you are saying nothing at all. Politicians speak a version of that too :)
@@PaulDuckett : lots of words nothing of content
Very interesting. Thanks. ❤
How about the same or similar discussion about Parsons and the Lord (sorry can’t remember his name) on June 12/13/14, if not mistaken. Just an idea about lawyers ‘performing’ too. Especially as they looked like sharks.
Edited to ask if you thought these men were directors and hiding behind their own “cloak of professionalism” too?
Good idea. If I can get to it I will. Am a bit stuffed just now with university work - marking coursework. But will do what I can
And, thanks for the support :)
p
Dear Paul,
Firstly thank your expert forensic analysis, 👍
I watched Vennells on the witness stand, and of all her theatricals that were Oscar winning performances, for me there were two moments that stood out and totally exposed her;
1. Tim Moloney KC produced that vital email you highlighted when Vennells literally trashed the SPM's, and that was "the final nail in her coffin"..
And..
2. As you expertly pointed out Paul was Sir Wyn's end of day intervention on Vennells Select Committe apearence brief,
That brief in its draft form went backwards and forwards via POL executives emails before Vennnells saw it, and I believe she did not see it till the morning of the Select Committe meeting, and Sir Wyn's "why" question and her silence again totally exposed her,..
I do think Sir Wyn is still seething over POL disrespect to him using his name to hand out bonuses against his instructions, and that came from Vennells herself, so both Sir Wyn and Tim Moloney KC were in effect Vennells Judge & Jury..
Thanks, that's nicely summed up :)