I try not to watch too much of this sort of stuff. 21st Century equivalent of being hung, drawn and quartered.
What I am seeing is someone who is simultaneously being accused of being clueless and of having her finger on every relevant pulse, and being a master manipulator.
She doesn't look like a "deceitful" person to me.
She does look like she is hopelessly out of her depth. Exactly the sort of CEO who could be hoodwinked by others.
And to my (untrained) eye a Suicide Risk.
In 2015 Second Sight produced incontrovertible evidence that there were systemic failures in the Horizon system. At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
If I am responsible for trying to hide something really dodgy, illegal and life changing within an organisation, what I want is a bumbling incompetent at the top.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
I try not to watch too much of this sort of stuff. 21st Century equivalent of being hung, drawn and quartered.
What I am seeing is someone who is simultaneously being accused of being clueless and of having her finger on every relevant pulse, and being a master manipulator.
She doesn't look like a "deceitful" person to me.
She does look like she is hopelessly out of her depth. Exactly the sort of CEO who could be hoodwinked by others.
And to my (untrained) eye a Suicide Risk.
I think you are seeing this as more complicated than it should have been. The PO were firing growing numbers of people over "losses" that they incurred. Yet in many cases the money hadnt been stolen. So it was still there. I am sure I have read a figure of a million quid. So on the one hand you are firing hundreds of people for stealing money. And on the other hand you have loads of money turning up that cant be accounted for. If you arent able to put two and two together. Surely the person in charge should demand an explanation.
Sure it isn't you that isn't seeing something as simple? When it self-evidently is not.
What do you mean by the money being "there"? If it really was that simple, an Auditor or Accountant would have flagged it up. Decades ago. To about 20 people. Many of which would have created a bigger record.
Auditors aren't known for their dazzling interpersonal skills. But their job is exactly putting 2 and 2 together. It's what they do.
It was hidden by a certain number of still unknown people. From either the Post Office. Or Fujitsu. And it was concealed from a larger Group of people. Including at least 3 Governments.
If I am responsible for trying to hide something really dodgy, illegal and life changing within an organisation, what I want is a bumbling incompetent at the top.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
In 2015 Second Sight produced incontrovertible evidence that there were systemic failures in the Horizon system. At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
If I am responsible for trying to hide something really dodgy, illegal and life changing within an organisation, what I want is a bumbling incompetent at the top.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
In 2015 Second Sight produced incontrovertible evidence that there were systemic failures in the Horizon system. At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
Welcome to the realities of Big Business.
Senior Executive commissions external report. People say that part of the problem is down to Senior Executives. End of role.
Happens all the time. As does pretty much every word of what @TheEdge949 says.
Getting back to the Accounts bit. You cannot just create a Debit without a corresponding Credit. So the real destination of the money was concealed.
There is no way that 25 years' worth of false accounting that was in plain sight would not be spotted, and not have simple proof today.
The builders for building it hurriedly. The White Star Line for owning it and saying it was unsinkable. Captain Smith, as he was the ships master with ultimate control. The lookout for failing to spot the berg in time. The designers for failing to provide enough lifeboats. The agents for blatantly overselling the space.
How about a combination of several of the above.
Paula Vennells cannot solely be held responsible for the Horizon Scandal. There were others in positions of power before her who are equally guilty if not more so.
If I am responsible for trying to hide something really dodgy, illegal and life changing within an organisation, what I want is a bumbling incompetent at the top.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
In 2015 Second Sight produced incontrovertible evidence that there were systemic failures in the Horizon system. At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
Welcome to the realities of Big Business.
Senior Executive commissions external report. People say that part of the problem is down to Senior Executives. End of role.
Happens all the time. As does pretty much every word of what @TheEdge949 says.
Getting back to the Accounts bit. You cannot just create a Debit without a corresponding Credit. So the real destination of the money was concealed.
There is no way that 25 years' worth of false accounting that was in plain sight would not be spotted, and not have simple proof today.
What do you think happened to the money that wasnt stolen?
The builders for building it hurriedly. The White Star Line for owning it and saying it was unsinkable. Captain Smith, as he was the ships master with ultimate control. The lookout for failing to spot the berg in time. The designers for failing to provide enough lifeboats. The agents for blatantly overselling the space.
How about a combination of several of the above.
Paula Vennells cannot solely be held responsible for the Horizon Scandal. There were others in positions of power before her who are equally guilty if not more so.
She has spent the day so far digging a deeper hole.
If I am responsible for trying to hide something really dodgy, illegal and life changing within an organisation, what I want is a bumbling incompetent at the top.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
In 2015 Second Sight produced incontrovertible evidence that there were systemic failures in the Horizon system. At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
Welcome to the realities of Big Business.
Senior Executive commissions external report. People say that part of the problem is down to Senior Executives. End of role.
Happens all the time. As does pretty much every word of what @TheEdge949 says.
Getting back to the Accounts bit. You cannot just create a Debit without a corresponding Credit. So the real destination of the money was concealed.
There is no way that 25 years' worth of false accounting that was in plain sight would not be spotted, and not have simple proof today.
I am not sure whether the Second Sight report was published before or after she gave her evidence to the MPs.
If I am responsible for trying to hide something really dodgy, illegal and life changing within an organisation, what I want is a bumbling incompetent at the top.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
In 2015 Second Sight produced incontrovertible evidence that there were systemic failures in the Horizon system. At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
Welcome to the realities of Big Business.
Senior Executive commissions external report. People say that part of the problem is down to Senior Executives. End of role.
Happens all the time. As does pretty much every word of what @TheEdge949 says.
Getting back to the Accounts bit. You cannot just create a Debit without a corresponding Credit. So the real destination of the money was concealed.
There is no way that 25 years' worth of false accounting that was in plain sight would not be spotted, and not have simple proof today.
She found out about the Fujitsu expert witness dodgy evidence in a number of court cases in 2013. She didnt even ask how many cases he had given evidence in. So this was 2 years before she gave the evidence to the MPs.
This campaigning all began rather earlier than the formation of the current campaigning body in 2009.
Can't say why I know that. Think people might be able to guess. But, on an unconnected note, I do remember where I was working in about 2005. Together with how glad I am that people managed to climb mountains I might have suggested (to him or them) they would be unable to do.
Let's look at the Appointment of Paula Vennells in 2012 for a minute. You know, the Appointment that was made 1 year before a £3 billion sale of a Public asset.
It is (now) public knowledge that there were (at that point unsubstantiated) rumours of foul play. It is standard practice for the Owners (in this case the Govt) to choose 1 of 2 types of Candidate to be the new CEO at such a time:-
1. Someone with an Accounting or, even better, a Forensic Accounting background. To make sure everything is squeaky clean before the Sale; or 2. Someone who has a public (and stock market ) reputation for being squeaky clean. Say, perhaps, a moral Crusader. A Preacher. Even someone known for having been considered for a post of Bishop
Ever wondered why it has not been made public exactly why Paula Vennells was appointed in the first place?
This campaigning all began rather earlier than the formation of the current campaigning body in 2009.
Can't say why I know that. Think people might be able to guess. But, on an unconnected note, I do remember where I was working in about 2005. Together with how glad I am that people managed to climb mountains I might have suggested (to him or them) they would be unable to do.
Let's look at the Appointment of Paula Vennells in 2012 for a minute. You know, the Appointment that was made 1 year before a £3 billion sale of a Public asset.
It is (now) public knowledge that there were (at that point unsubstantiated) rumours of foul play. It is standard practice for the Owners (in this case the Govt) to choose 1 of 2 types of Candidate to be the new CEO at such a time:-
1. Someone with an Accounting or, even better, a Forensic Accounting background. To make sure everything is squeaky clean before the Sale; or 2. Someone who has a public (and stock market ) reputation for being squeaky clean. Say, perhaps, a moral Crusader. A Preacher. Even someone known for having been considered for a post of Bishop
Ever wondered why it has not been made public exactly why Paula Vennells was appointed in the first place?
This campaigning all began rather earlier than the formation of the current campaigning body in 2009.
Can't say why I know that. Think people might be able to guess. But, on an unconnected note, I do remember where I was working in about 2005. Together with how glad I am that people managed to climb mountains I might have suggested (to him or them) they would be unable to do.
Let's look at the Appointment of Paula Vennells in 2012 for a minute. You know, the Appointment that was made 1 year before a £3 billion sale of a Public asset.
It is (now) public knowledge that there were (at that point unsubstantiated) rumours of foul play. It is standard practice for the Owners (in this case the Govt) to choose 1 of 2 types of Candidate to be the new CEO at such a time:-
1. Someone with an Accounting or, even better, a Forensic Accounting background. To make sure everything is squeaky clean before the Sale; or 2. Someone who has a public (and stock market ) reputation for being squeaky clean. Say, perhaps, a moral Crusader. A Preacher. Even someone known for having been considered for a post of Bishop
Ever wondered why it has not been made public exactly why Paula Vennells was appointed in the first place?
No.
Ever wondered why the Inquiry is not publicising answers to its own questions on lists of issues?
I try not to watch too much of this sort of stuff. 21st Century equivalent of being hung, drawn and quartered.
What I am seeing is someone who is simultaneously being accused of being clueless and of having her finger on every relevant pulse, and being a master manipulator.
She doesn't look like a "deceitful" person to me.
She does look like she is hopelessly out of her depth. Exactly the sort of CEO who could be hoodwinked by others.
And to my (untrained) eye a Suicide Risk.
I think you are seeing this as more complicated than it should have been. The PO were firing growing numbers of people over "losses" that they incurred. Yet in many cases the money hadnt been stolen. So it was still there. I am sure I have read a figure of a million quid. So on the one hand you are firing hundreds of people for stealing money. And on the other hand you have loads of money turning up that cant be accounted for. If you arent able to put two and two together. Surely the person in charge should demand an explanation.
Sure it isn't you that isn't seeing something as simple? When it self-evidently is not.
What do you mean by the money being "there"? If it really was that simple, an Auditor or Accountant would have flagged it up. Decades ago. To about 20 people. Many of which would have created a bigger record.
Auditors aren't known for their dazzling interpersonal skills. But their job is exactly putting 2 and 2 together. It's what they do.
It was hidden by a certain number of still unknown people. From either the Post Office. Or Fujitsu. And it was concealed from a larger Group of people. Including at least 3 Governments.
Perhaps it was.
I assume that the auditors would have produced a report for the PO. As the money wasnt stolen, it must have been there. It was the responsibilty of the PO to act on the auditors report. Or not.
It is important to remember the Post Office had no real control over its internal accounting systems for the duration of its Horizon-related prosecution spree (cf the 2013 Detica report) and so it didn’t know where money was going, nor could it properly account for where it came from. Suggesting that double-entry accounting would have revealed an obvious positive entry corresponding to an obvious negative entry assumes the Post Office systems worked and the people operating them knew what they were doing. They didn’t, and even if they did, they were not going to give any visibility of them to Subpostmasters or their legal representatives.
The really, really short answer is that any money the Post Office was credited which it couldn’t make sense of ended up one of many internal suspense accounts.
It is therefore perfectly likely that the Post Office took money which rightfully belonged to its Subpostmasters and used it to bolster its bottom line. This was part-admitted by Post Office CEO Nick Read in a parliamentary committee meeting in January 2021:
Chair: But you have to do a profit and loss account, do you not, Mr Read, with money coming in and money going out? If victims were putting money into the Post Office, surely you know that money came in from somewhere. Did it just go to your bottom line? Nick Read: It went into a general suspense account.
What Mr Read didn’t tell the Committee was that after three years (according to one source I have spoken to), if entries in the suspense account were not identified and/or claimed, the cash was swept into the Post Office’s P&L account and counted as profit. Trebles on the back of Subpostmaster misery all round.
So someone who was not Paula Vennells put money into an account.
Then someone else who was not Paula Vennells either gifted this money to the Shareholders or nicked it for themselves. 3 years later. With no-one checking anything in relation to this money. For 3 years.
Someone who is not Paula Vennells needs questioning. The sort of systemic fraud involving systems that the FD should be on top of.
Funny how the PO was making a loss before privatisation. Then made a Profit just in time for the sell-off. Lucky, that.
Now it could be that Mrs Vennells was party to all of that. Although if she is a criminal mastermind, or indeed any sort of mastermind, she is a brilliant actress.
But my money is on her believing it was her leadership and skills that turned it around. Then. Just not now.
So someone who was not Paula Vennells put money into an account.
Then someone else who was not Paula Vennells either gifted this money to the Shareholders or nicked it for themselves. 3 years later. With no-one checking anything in relation to this money. For 3 years.
Someone who is not Paula Vennells needs questioning. The sort of systemic fraud involving systems that the FD should be on top of.
Funny how the PO was making a loss before privatisation. Then made a Profit just in time for the sell-off. Lucky, that.
Now it could be that Mrs Vennells was party to all of that. Although if she is a criminal mastermind, or indeed any sort of mastermind, she is a brilliant actress.
But my money is on her believing it was her leadership and skills that turned it around. Then. Just not now.
Comments
At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
Somebody who I know is going to take the paycheck, pay lip service to the position and isn't going to look too deeply into anything. Somebody who I can give the mushroom treatment to and somebody who if it all blows up, I can hang out to dry.
It happens in business, politics and criminal enterprise and the one template fits all.
Do I think she's accountable. Yes but that comes with the position she held, it does not necessarily make her responsible.
Do I think she's culpable. Yes but again that does not necessarily make her complicit.
Do I think she's incompetent. Absolutely she appears to be someone who was happy to believe what she was told by the people in her organisation without understanding their roles and what was going on. She displayed an ability to take the path of least resistance when perhaps a more rugged approach to matters may have prevented much of this.
She does however come across as evasive, unreliable and tentative. Not a good look for her current position. I would wager there are some in high places who are more than a little nervous right now.
At which point they were fired by Paula Vennells.
"Auditors aren't known for their dazzling interpersonal skills."
Senior Executive commissions external report.
People say that part of the problem is down to Senior Executives.
End of role.
Happens all the time. As does pretty much every word of what @TheEdge949 says.
Getting back to the Accounts bit. You cannot just create a Debit without a corresponding Credit. So the real destination of the money was concealed.
There is no way that 25 years' worth of false accounting that was in plain sight would not be spotted, and not have simple proof today.
The builders for building it hurriedly. The White Star Line for owning it and saying it was unsinkable. Captain Smith, as he was the ships master with ultimate control. The lookout for failing to spot the berg in time. The designers for failing to provide enough lifeboats. The agents for blatantly overselling the space.
How about a combination of several of the above.
Paula Vennells cannot solely be held responsible for the Horizon Scandal. There were others in positions of power before her who are equally guilty if not more so.
She didnt even ask how many cases he had given evidence in.
So this was 2 years before she gave the evidence to the MPs.
Can't say why I know that. Think people might be able to guess. But, on an unconnected note, I do remember where I was working in about 2005. Together with how glad I am that people managed to climb mountains I might have suggested (to him or them) they would be unable to do.
Let's look at the Appointment of Paula Vennells in 2012 for a minute. You know, the Appointment that was made 1 year before a £3 billion sale of a Public asset.
It is (now) public knowledge that there were (at that point unsubstantiated) rumours of foul play. It is standard practice for the Owners (in this case the Govt) to choose 1 of 2 types of Candidate to be the new CEO at such a time:-
1. Someone with an Accounting or, even better, a Forensic Accounting background. To make sure everything is squeaky clean before the Sale; or
2. Someone who has a public (and stock market ) reputation for being squeaky clean. Say, perhaps, a moral Crusader. A Preacher. Even someone known for having been considered for a post of Bishop
Ever wondered why it has not been made public exactly why Paula Vennells was appointed in the first place?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/live/paula-vennells-post-office-horizon-inquiry-084519812.html
Look at the list of issues in 49-60 below:-
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/publications/completed-list-issues
These aren't questions you just ask in front of a public gallery to just 1 person. You ask it in writing. To lots of people.
If you want the truth, that is. And you want the public to know it.
As the money wasnt stolen, it must have been there.
It was the responsibilty of the PO to act on the auditors report.
Or not.
It is important to remember the Post Office had no real control over its internal accounting systems for the duration of its Horizon-related prosecution spree (cf the 2013 Detica report) and so it didn’t know where money was going, nor could it properly account for where it came from. Suggesting that double-entry accounting would have revealed an obvious positive entry corresponding to an obvious negative entry assumes the Post Office systems worked and the people operating them knew what they were doing. They didn’t, and even if they did, they were not going to give any visibility of them to Subpostmasters or their legal representatives.
The really, really short answer is that any money the Post Office was credited which it couldn’t make sense of ended up one of many internal suspense accounts.
It is therefore perfectly likely that the Post Office took money which rightfully belonged to its Subpostmasters and used it to bolster its bottom line. This was part-admitted by Post Office CEO Nick Read in a parliamentary committee meeting in January 2021:
Chair: But you have to do a profit and loss account, do you not, Mr Read, with money coming in and money going out? If victims were putting money into the Post Office, surely you know that money came in from somewhere. Did it just go to your bottom line?
Nick Read: It went into a general suspense account.
What Mr Read didn’t tell the Committee was that after three years (according to one source I have spoken to), if entries in the suspense account were not identified and/or claimed, the cash was swept into the Post Office’s P&L account and counted as profit. Trebles on the back of Subpostmaster misery all round.
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/podcast-where-did-all-the-money-go/#:~:text=The short answer to Where Did All The,discrepancies which showed up in Subpostmaster branch accounts.
Then someone else who was not Paula Vennells either gifted this money to the Shareholders or nicked it for themselves. 3 years later. With no-one checking anything in relation to this money. For 3 years.
Someone who is not Paula Vennells needs questioning. The sort of systemic fraud involving systems that the FD should be on top of.
Funny how the PO was making a loss before privatisation. Then made a Profit just in time for the sell-off. Lucky, that.
Now it could be that Mrs Vennells was party to all of that. Although if she is a criminal mastermind, or indeed any sort of mastermind, she is a brilliant actress.
But my money is on her believing it was her leadership and skills that turned it around. Then. Just not now.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/paula-vennells-should-be-dragged-away-in-handcuffs-like-i-was-her-tears-are-fake/ar-BB1mV1eB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=b7e72b42c23e4ebe81a1d0d07e8b4ee7&ei=21
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/paula-vennells-post-office-live-32872826