Big week ahead: Susan Crichton, Chris Aujard and Angela van den Bogerd.
Crichton and Aujard, the most senior lawyers at the PO. The inquiry/SPM lawyer vs. PO lawyer sessions are fascinating.
van den Bogerd was Vennells’ sidekick.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
For another opinion on proceedings, try The Law Society Gazette.
From 5 February 2024:
Lawyers hauled before the Post Office Inquiry have been lambasted as part of victims’ summing up of the handling of Horizon fraud prosecutions.
In the latest phase of the public inquiry, representatives of sub-postmasters took turns to criticise the conduct of external and in-house lawyers who worked on their convictions.
Sam Stein KC, instructed by Howe & Co representing more than 200 sub-postmasters, said the evidence had ‘pulled back the curtain on the decades of the Great Post Office Cook-Up and Cover-Up’.He said there had been an ‘appalling lack of professionalism’ among lawyers and a refusal to investigate the Horizon system because of what it would reveal.
Stein referred to Mandy Talbot, an in-house lawyer, as the ‘Post Office’s very own ”evil robot”, saying that she was supposed to be responsible for civil actions but ‘deliberately inserted herself in the wider dealings with Horizon cases’...
Or their take on Rodric Williams.
Well, today's 'episode' is becoming quite revealing and the credibility of Susan Crichton is there for all to see. Selective memory overdrive! How do these people get such senior positions in companies? Let's change the word 'bug' to something less emotive and, more importantly, critical!
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
I've not really been paying too much attention to it this morning.........but the alternative 'wording' email piqued my interest a lot. With every witness that stands we can see more and more evidence of the corporate cover up.
If I've heard "As I recall" and "To the best of my recollection" from Susan Crichton once today, I've heard it a dozen or more. Cautious doesn't quite cover it.
The higher up the tree they climb, the more you can see their arses.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
If only Fujitsu had snuck in to change Angela van den Bogerd’s evidence
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8...e640cde2fd2587
The Peter Principle seems to apply to those at the top of POL. That is on top of them being loathsome individuals who’ve been caught out.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Well, AvdB was a cold cookie. Brazen. Deflected everything.
Next up (mainly) for me is Jarnail Singh at the end of next week. Then it's a bit of wait for the main event, PV.
I also see that Gareth Jenkins is slated for four days at the end of June. That's going to be heavy duty.
Why does it need to take so long?
Dunno but from observation if you are say a humble carer, just one example, and you mistakenly tick the wrong box on the application form, then the full weight of the authorities drops on you post haste from a great height. Weird.Originally Posted by adrianw
It's almost as if when a person is perceived to commit a crime against the State, even if it be an honest mistake, that such is dealt with incredibly seriously and at pace YET when the State commits a heinous crime against the people...In this instance the State being represented ''at arms length'' by the PO and Fujitsu, then the wheels of justice will most assuredly grind at glacial pace, the State's Ministers distracted, appeased with obscuration from the ''arms length'' arm's myrmidons.
I reckon when you outsource, proxy the states' institutions and functions more often than not you'll eventually get a pretty poxy state and bad things can, will happen to good, decent people in the cause of profit and cover up's.
Last edited by Passenger; 27th April 2024 at 10:32.
As for the Inquiry, I'd say because it is looking into events that took place over 16 years, involved many people (both perpetrators and victims), at least two major companies, several legal firms, mountains of correspondence etc etc. Add to that, it is being conducted in public because it this is a matter of major public concern.
Most Court cases are much more limited involving legally defined offences, not more than a few defendants and evidence limited to matters immediately related to the accusation. The Inquiry is trying to find out if what if any misdemeanours have been committed and by whom. Thus it is an investigation (subject to a MoU with the Met), needs to be comprehensive and so is necessarily lengthy.
Hugh Flemington today, Head of Legal.
Multiple choice answers:
1. I can’t recall, or
2. I can’t remember.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah - he's a twat.
Bet all his diaries have long gone.
Well- he took no responsibility, was the vaguest of vague and then ended with an apology (of sorts).
Last edited by blackal; 30th April 2024 at 13:07.
I haven’t watched, or kept up with this as much as I would like to.
Is it just everyone covering their own arses, or has there been any proper smoking gun moments?
To borrow from The Times - they are still looking for Will Smith, dressed in black wiping everyone's memories
The problem is the PO witnesses are very aware of the risk of criminal prosecution so are not being forthcoming with the enquiry and taking the 5th in the form of collective memory loss.
What's needed is the written evidence to require them to provide a version of their recollection which can then be tested against further evidence; in the absence thereof this was always going to be unsatisfactory.
There needs to be a robust criminal investigation and the current Govt seems to have no real desire to support that.
I think Labour should commit to in-depth investigations with a view to criminal prosecution re the PO scandal, PPE contracts, financial rewards received by MPs, the Russia report, misconduct in public office etc. Without that transparency any future Govt is forever undermined on the basis that most folk think they're all the same and they probably are!
They have all provided a written Witness Statement concluding with "I believe the content of this statement to be true" and are asked to confirm its content at the beginning of their oral evidence.
Yeah, my reference was to the need for credible evidence that could be put to them that would necessitate them recounting memories to defend themselves and incriminate others. Otherwise it looks like we'll end up with nobody being personally and substantively responsible for such an enormous scandal...
I think that the future problems that Labour will have with the whole population - the things you mention, should be pretty popular (and just).
I only listened for a short while, think it was a couple of days ago now, but one line of inquiry was to evidence the PO's over reliance on the accuracy of Horizon data; the example was along the lines that just prior to one SPM admitting guilt based on Horizon data, the PO were aware that the new SPM was having similar issues with Horizon and had established ongoing theft by an employee's son but that wasn't disclosed or factored in by the PO.
If they didn’t know then they were not doing their job.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
I've run public organisations with hundreds of staff - albeit nowhere near on the scale of the PO - but it simply isn't credible that senior leaders had no inkling there were serious problems. It just doesn't work that way.
They knew because it would have been impossible for them not to know, particularly given the years of ongoing campaigning and stories in the media.
So that leaves only one conclusion in my opinion - they knew there was a good chance that people had ben wrongly prosecuted and convicted, but decided to deny this possibility and continue with unsafe prosecutions. If that isn't criminal behaviour then our judicial system is toothless and pointless.
So clever my foot fell off.
The scale of the cover-up is truly shocking, hopefully some serious prison time awaits.
J Singh is really being put through the ringer by counsel today. It'll be all out war when the CPs get their turn!
He's come up with a new line..."Not my job".
I am not holding my breath for this. "We will learn lessons from this" is bound to be trotted out. Call me cynical, but I have seen it too often in the past.
I don't disagree, although I do wonder what the potential for civil prosecutions could be?
Yes his obsequious statements were laughable and the inquiry lawyer knew it and opened up with them.
A deluded individual, who played with words for Jack Straw (never liked him) and now for the Refugee Council.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by BillyCasper; 14th May 2024 at 14:27.
One of the frightening things is that many of these, should we say "incompetents"move onto other, well paid, responsible positions. How do they get away with it?
Another corporate affairs reptile today. Unbearable and unfortunately so familiar in the workplace.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Not only complicit, but also tried desperately to force the Post Office Head of IT to cover it all up
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2546169.html
Never is a prison sentence so richly deserved
Link not working
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Works for me
Looks like Crozier is a liar too.
Crozier’s claim he was unaware of Post Office scandal undermined by letters https://on.ft.com/3WLvYnR
That was always clearly bullshit.
I have said before, there is simply no way that these very senior managers were not aware that there were serious questions over the safety of so many convictions. They knew, but they let them go ahead anyway and covered up the issues.
And now some of them are shitting themselves that they might actually have to answer for the appalling tragedies they have wreaked on so many lives and families.
And accountability is the one thing none of them like in any way. They expect to be paid huge salaries and yet have no actual responsibility, legal, moral or otherwise.
I hope Vennels is absolutely shredded at the inquiry, but even if she is, the MET are not exactly known for being proactive when it comes to the rich and powerful.
So clever my foot fell off.
They clearly care about very little except for saving themselves.
What they will properly be sh1tting themselves about is being criminally prosecuted.
ICYMI...Former Post Office GC Jane MacLeod:
One of the key legal figures in the later years of the Post Office scandal is refusing to appear before the public inquiry, it emerged today.
Jane MacLeod, who was general counsel from 2015 to 2019, was listed to appear as a witness next month to explain her role in the civil litigation that ultimately fully exposed the scandal.
But her name has subsequently disappeared from the list. During cross-examination of chief financial officer Alisdair Cameron, he had said that the government-ordered Swift review, from 2016, was not being shared with him because MacLeod had said it was privileged. Cameron suggested to the inquiry that she may disagree with this when she appeared at the inquiry.
Counsel Jason Beer KC said: ‘We are not going to hear from her. She lives abroad and won’t co-operate.’
MacLeod was head of the Post Office legal team during the Bates v Post Office litigation and is believed to have advised chairman Tim Parker not to share the review authored by Treasury lawyer Jonathan Swift KC. This review had found ‘real issues’ for the Post Office...
Isn't it funny our government won't get directly involved in the post office fiasco and prosecute those concerned, yet when someone though no fault of their own https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-69031180
See “Important witness” removed and the Chair's statement:
...Ms MacLeod provided a draft of her witness statement on 11 April 2024. Her recognised legal representative informed the Inquiry that, due to the passage of time, Ms MacLeod considered that her written statement was the best evidence that she could offer and that she was “questioning…whether she would be able to assist the Inquiry further” by providing oral evidence. The Inquiry restated its position that it considered it important to hear oral evidence from Ms MacLeod. Further, it offered to meet Ms MacLeod’s travel and accommodation expenses. However, Ms MacLeod has made it clear that she will not co-operate with the Inquiry by providing oral evidence, whether by attending the Inquiry in person or by giving evidence remotely via live video link.
I have considered the options available to me in respect of Ms MacLeod. I note that the conventional view is that section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 cannot be used to compel witnesses who are based abroad and not UK nationals to give evidence. If that is correct, then I have no further express power under the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel Ms MacLeod to attend. However, even if that conventional view is wrong, I consider that there is little benefit in serving Ms MacLeod with a notice under section 21. Issuing the notice is different from enforcing it, and I consider that the methods of enforcement available to me are very limited in respect of a person who is resident abroad...
And tiny, tiny tears...the gathered Postmasters with Sky news, resolutely not buying it...all power to them.
^^^In would like to see how that plays out when he criminal proceedings start.
Rather than bullying into agreeing to pay the money back (wonder where they learnt that it does sound awfully familiar ?)
Just a heads up - this next week Wed to Fri it's the one we've all been waiting for.......PV herself.
Last week she 'dumped' a lot of newly 'found' material to the inquiry (50 docs apparently). I wonder what surprises those will bring, to her favour of course.
I thought this was bad until this report on blood came out today.
Is there any honest organisations left? What is the matter with these people?
While individuals bear personal responsibility, it is also a systemic problem where so much weight is placed on “targets” and “performance” that basic decency gets overridden by collective corporate expectations and the implicit threat that if you aren’t putting your employer above everything and everyone else, then you are disloyal and failing.
In our rush to satiate the system’s appetite it is all too easy to subconsciously justify the wrong actions as necessary for the greater good.
Just my opinion of course.
So clever my foot fell off.
I suspect those who climb the greasy pole to these very senior roles are more likely to be willing to view corporate indicators of success above morality, and the law it seems, whilst convincing themselves that's ok.
Multiple criminal prosecutions needed for the PO execs and those involved in covering up the blood scandal. Until genuine justice is seen for these execs they'll continue to enrich themselves with such behaviour.
Seems same in the world of politics as in top level corporate...after all the 2 worlds are overlapping, entwined, so would be surprising if weren´t the WAY...just as a statement of fact, apolitical.
Total agreement your 2nd point...otherwise the corruption continues and trickles down, at odds with the wealth.
My money says it's unlikely they get prosecuted, it's like the water companies dumping sewage or the contaminated blood scandal, the UK is a soft touch and they all know it, if there is enough public pressure they might have an expensive long winded enquiry where they will conclude that lessons need to be learnt!
Oh well Venells tomorrow
Open for business no matter the cost?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote