Post Office campaigner Alan Bates given knighthood - but insists there's still 'work to do'

HAYSIE · May 22

She is getting absolutely battered on her evidence.
She is not coming across as at all credible.
She is either an out and out liar.
Or was really sh1t at her job.
Or both.
She belongs in jail.

madprof · May 22

It's as compelling a watch today as baby reindeer!

Essexphil · May 22

Why should someone go to jail for being sh1t at their job?

I've worked for lots of CEOs. And nearly all of them relied on other people doing 99% of their job for them. Secure in the knowledge that they were perfect.

A lot were rubbish. Quite a few were inveterate liars.

But none should be in prison.

These problems began before she joined. Continued after she left. Were not of her making. She was just 1 of several people who failed to grasp the extent of the problem.

On your criteria, pretty much everyone would be in prison.

HAYSIE · May 22

A few tears are unlikely to placate her victims.

HAYSIE · May 22

Essexphil said:
Why should someone go to jail for being sh1t at their job?

I've worked for lots of CEOs. And nearly all of them relied on other people doing 99% of their job for them. Secure in the knowledge that they were perfect.

A lot were rubbish. Quite a few were inveterate liars.

But none should be in prison.

These problems began before she joined. Continued after she left. Were not of her making. She was just 1 of several people who failed to grasp the extent of the problem.

On your criteria, pretty much everyone would be in prison.

She is clearly guilty of perjury.

madprof · May 22

I agree, a lot of people are sh it at their job, however the consequences of her actions/inactions are plain to see, including the most inappropriate insulations/descriptions of subpostmasters throughout.... hopefully this will be referred for criminal prosecutions- not just her, Angela van shyster as well

stokefc · May 22

Essexphil said:
Why should someone go to jail for being sh1t at their job?

I've worked for lots of CEOs. And nearly all of them relied on other people doing 99% of their job for them. Secure in the knowledge that they were perfect.

A lot were rubbish. Quite a few were inveterate liars.

But none should be in prison.

These problems began before she joined. Continued after she left. Were not of her making. She was just 1 of several people who failed to grasp the extent of the problem.

On your criteria, pretty much everyone would be in prison.

Say that to the postmasters wrongly jailed on her watch, see deserves some bird after what happened imho ofc

stokefc · May 22

BTW, I don't think she will or any of the people involved in this fiasco will be jailed which is unfortunate

Bean81 · May 22

I went to a talk with an ex-CEO of a budget airline a while back. He said he was liable to go to jail if there was an accident that was the fault of the airline. I don't know if that was true, but causing death isn't much of a step up from ruining lives in this example. I generally agree with He point though - if an employee fouls up, the CEO shouldn't have to go in the majority of cases.

HAYSIE · May 22

Bean81 said:
I went to a talk with an ex-CEO of a budget airline a while back. He said he was liable to go to jail if there was an accident that was the fault of the airline. I don't know if that was true, but causing death isn't much of a step up from ruining lives in this example. I generally agree with He point though - if an employee fouls up, the CEO shouldn't have to go in the majority of cases.

One of them committed suicide, after they held him responsible for, and charged him for their losses, which were 54k, after an armed robbery.

HAYSIE · May 22

madprof said:
I agree, a lot of people are sh it at their job, however the consequences of her actions/inactions are plain to see, including the most inappropriate insulations/descriptions of subpostmasters throughout.... hopefully this will be referred for criminal prosecutions- not just her, Angela van shyster as well

A stranger to the truth.
Just a small point.
She said earlier that she wasnt aware that the PO were conducting their own prosecutions.
Yet there was a lawyer with a team of 100 people conducting investigations, and prosecuting people up and down the country.
I cant believe that on being appointed MD, that you wouldnt famialarise with the senior people working for you, and what they actually did.

The Barrister made the point earlier that she cant remember anything that incurrs blame for the PO, yet she has precise memories about stuff that might lessen the blame on her.

HAYSIE · May 22

Paula Vennells latest: Disgraced ex-Post Office boss breaks down during questioning

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/live/paula-vennells-post-office-horizon-inquiry-065524414.html

madprof · May 22

I'm still watching....I'd also watch a review by a body language expert on P. Venn ( same as the YouTube one done on the real Martha - BR)

This should be a new ' caption competition' ...speech bubbles only

"Oh sh it, they've got me banged to rights"... " htf can I wriggle out of this?"

Tears caused by her self imposed stress by the cover up...

It's incredible how she remembers such specific details when it suits the PO agenda of cover up but not when it's linked to the transgressions being discussed... " I believe or it's my understanding or I don't recall or I don't remember"

Toffeeandy · May 22

madprof said:
I'm still watching....I'd also watch a review by a body language expert on P. Venn ( same as the YouTube one done on the real Martha - BR)

This should be a new ' caption competition' ...speech bubbles only

"Oh sh it, they've got me banged to rights"... " htf can I wriggle out of this?"

Tears caused by her self imposed stress by the cover up...

It's incredible how she remembers such specific details when it suits the PO agenda of cover up but not when it's linked to the transgressions being discussed... " I believe or it's my understanding or I don't recall or I don't remember"

It's known as "The Nicola Sturgeon" style of answering questions....

Essexphil · May 22

Thank goodness I have never been in that position. But I have sat alongside 2 people who were in a similar position.

There is no good answer. Absolutely nothing she could say or do (once it was finally clear that the rumours were true) which would avoid this sh1tstorm. I say that as someone who has (in the past) been paid to set out the options. And none of them are good. The appalling treatment of many sub-postmasters started in 1999 or earlier. 13 years before she became CEO.

And no amount of moralising will change that. All of us have made bad choices in whatever work we do. Which in all probability have ruined lives. Not entirely our fault. But we played a small part in it. And none of us have gone to jail.

But a lot of us feel entitled to Judge other people.

madprof · May 22

Lord Arbuthnot said don't expect any 'gotcha' moments with Paula Venn

If you only watch the last question ( last 5 minutes of today) from Sir Wynn, imo that was one!

madprof · May 22

Essexphil said:
Thank goodness I have never been in that position. But I have sat alongside 2 people who were in a similar position.

There is no good answer. Absolutely nothing she could say or do (once it was finally clear that the rumours were true) which would avoid this sh1tstorm. I say that as someone who has (in the past) been paid to set out the options. And none of them are good. The appalling treatment of many sub-postmasters started in 1999 or earlier. 13 years before she became CEO.

And no amount of moralising will change that. All of us have made bad choices in whatever work we do. Which in all probability have ruined lives. Not entirely our fault. But we played a small part in it. And none of us have gone to jail.

But a lot of us feel entitled to Judge other people.

True, it started long before her period of tenure, therefore the question remains?

Did she know?

If yes why didn't she do something about it?

If no, given the time period and significance, why didn't she?

We all ' judge' based on what we see and hear...I guess for me the key differential is IF,

IF this was a criminal proceeding and her answers were on oath, with the raft of documentation that has been presented confirming she had access to known information, what she has said could be classed as perjury? ( Phil. Advise please)

Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law?

As it's a public enquiry I therefore presume , unless she specifically implicates herself ( or others, though she seems to be trying* to throw people under the bus all day) she could be immune from prosecution?

I've watched all of today, plan to watch the next 2 days as the nuances of the language used throughout is important- news bulletin snapshots can distort and not reflect what is said- so I do think Sir Wynn hit the nail on the head, which is why she crumbled!

Pity he left her to reflect and expect her to answer it tomorrow- by which time her legal team will construct a nebulous response, no doubt?!

stokefc · May 22

Essexphil said:
Thank goodness I have never been in that position. But I have sat alongside 2 people who were in a similar position.

There is no good answer. Absolutely nothing she could say or do (once it was finally clear that the rumours were true) which would avoid this sh1tstorm. I say that as someone who has (in the past) been paid to set out the options. And none of them are good. The appalling treatment of many sub-postmasters started in 1999 or earlier. 13 years before she became CEO.

And no amount of moralising will change that. All of us have made bad choices in whatever work we do. Which in all probability have ruined lives. Not entirely our fault. But we played a small part in it. And none of us have gone to jail.

But a lot of us feel entitled to Judge other people.

With respect Phil that's a load of tosh , i know you're looking at it from a solicitors perspective and you've probably come across these type of circumstances many times but all of us.. nah , i know i haven't and the wife and my kids

Essexphil · May 22

madprof said:

Essexphil said:
Thank goodness I have never been in that position. But I have sat alongside 2 people who were in a similar position.

There is no good answer. Absolutely nothing she could say or do (once it was finally clear that the rumours were true) which would avoid this sh1tstorm. I say that as someone who has (in the past) been paid to set out the options. And none of them are good. The appalling treatment of many sub-postmasters started in 1999 or earlier. 13 years before she became CEO.

And no amount of moralising will change that. All of us have made bad choices in whatever work we do. Which in all probability have ruined lives. Not entirely our fault. But we played a small part in it. And none of us have gone to jail.

But a lot of us feel entitled to Judge other people.
True, it started long before her period of tenure, therefore the question remains?

Did she know?

If yes why didn't she do something about it?

If no, given the time period and significance, why didn't she?

We all ' judge' based on what we see and hear...I guess for me the key differential is IF,

IF this was a criminal proceeding and her answers were on oath, with the raft of documentation that has been presented confirming she had access to known information, what she has said could be classed as perjury? ( Phil. Advise please)

Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law?

As it's a public enquiry I therefore presume , unless she specifically implicates herself ( or others, though she seems to be trying* to throw people under the bus all day) she could be immune from prosecution?

I've watched all of today, plan to watch the next 2 days as the nuances of the language used throughout is important- news bulletin snapshots can distort and not reflect what is said- so I do think Sir Wynn hit the nail on the head, which is why she crumbled!

Pity he left her to reflect and expect her to answer it tomorrow- by which time her legal team will construct a nebulous response, no doubt?!

Did she know? Certainly not at the beginning of her Tenure. Then there was a period when she suspected stuff. And, at some point, I expect she knew-although proving that is not easy

Perjury? Don't know. Simply because I do not know (1) Whether this counts as "judicial proceedings" within the Legislation and (2) Whether it can be proved that she lied (as opposed to clung on to stuff she hoped was true at the time)

"Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law"? Good old "Ignorantia Iuris Neminem Excusat". Something Law students are taught in about Week 2. Except it usually isn't true. Most offences are not "Strict Liability" offences. Necessary to prove some form of Intent for most stuff. And Perjury is as rare as rocking horse poo

She just seems to be 1 of a lot of people implicated in all this. And not a major player. But the major scapegoat. Why, for example, did Fujitsu not come clean 15 years before she was appointed?

PS. If you are unable to answer a question, cry instead

HAYSIE · May 22

Paula Vennells latest: Disgraced ex-Post Office boss breaks down during questioning
Disgraced ex-Post Office boss Vennells was questioned under oath about her role in the Horizon IT scandal.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/live/paula-vennells-post-office-horizon-inquiry-065524414.html

HAYSIE · May 22

Alan Bates says he has 'no sympathy' for Paula Vennells after she broke down in tears three times - amid fury at shamed ex-boss' 'PR apology' for Horizon scandal which saw hundreds of postmasters wrongly convicted

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13448181/paula-vennells-post-office-inquiry-alan-bates.html

Post Office campaigner Alan Bates given knighthood - but insists there's still 'work to do'

Comments