|
Post by Clayton Wood on May 24, 2024 10:58:13 GMT
The inquiry has heard that Ms Vennells removed a line from a Royal Mail prospectus about the Post Office's IT system.
The revelation could potentially have serious consequences, as it might mean the prospectus was inaccurate at the time of Royal Mail's privatisation.
Christ on a bike.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 24, 2024 12:27:37 GMT
if i had around 900 serious thefts from my post office I would not be able to believe that 900 normal people were stealing huge amounts from me
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 12:27:55 GMT
Fake tears again. Shit acting. Loved Stein's immediate reaction to her tears ... "What a load of rubbish!" 😁
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 12:36:29 GMT
if i had around 900 serious thefts from my post office I would not be able to believe that 900 normal people were stealing huge amounts from me It's a question, I've long wondered about but never seen asked ... if it was a part of the SPM's contract (and it was) that any shortfalls had to be made up 100% by the SPM's, then just what was the point of them stealing from the Post Office in the first place? Would somebody steal a car if they knew that it was absolutely certain that they would get caught? Would a burglar rob a house, if he knew that the police were on their way? What could the SPM's ever stand to gain but a criminal record? It doesn't make any sense for them to have even attempted what they were accused of.
|
|
|
Post by delilahwhy on May 24, 2024 13:03:10 GMT
The whole thing is indicative of the current world we live in.
The "higher ups" on the gravy train, getting paid extortionate amounts of money, being completely inept and corrupt, and then evading responsibility.
I accept the Post Office scandal is one of (if not most) serious issues of late, but they're all the same. Whether they're millionaire bosses pumping sewage into our waters and getting paid unbelievable dividends for the privilege, or MPs scamming tens of thousands on expenses/"hiring" friends, family as staff etc. Or Governments allowing Energy companies to raise costs by 300% "because of Putin/Russia....its unavoidable" only to then announce record profits in the Billions.....
There is scandal and deceit all over and its all driven by money. The rich just want to get richer and hoard all the wealth, and do whatever the hell they like to do just that. And then pay off Governments, Media etc to evade any punishment.
Paula Vennells got paid over £5m during her time at the Post Office. She was also awarded a CBE in the process (don't even get me stared on the Royal Family and the millions of pounds of Taxpayers money spent to protect that nonce Andrew). Everyone knows she knew what was going on. She (and the Post Office) was more concerned about how it would make them look and the reputational damage it would cause to come clean, so decided to cover it all up. And as a consequence it destroyed people's lives. They knew exactly what they were doing.
And now we have to witness her tears? Are we supposed to feel any sympathy for her? And the millionaire lifestyle she has enjoyed, and the honours bestowed upon her? All whilst genuine hardworking people were pummelled and beaten into the ground, and forced to live through absolute hell? They literally treat people like shit on their shoe and don't care about the pain and suffering they cause. They're just happy to keep getting richer and protect their own skin. That's all they care about.
It's absolutely rotten to the core. They're all saying "I don't recall" or trying to shift blame elsewhere.
They're trying to ride it out and return to their havens. The utterly, shameless cunts.
The whole lot needs burning down.
The imminent change in Goverment will be a very small step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 13:58:18 GMT
One of tomorrow's newspapers should put her One Show email on their front page tomorrow!
She is pure evil ...
|
|
|
Post by delilahwhy on May 24, 2024 14:03:29 GMT
One of tomorrow's newspapers should put her One Show email on their front page tomorrow! She is pure evil ... Enlighten me please mate.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 14:09:42 GMT
One of tomorrow's newspapers should put her One Show email on their front page tomorrow! She is pure evil ... Enlighten me please mate. Didn't realise that when I posted the above, that it was going to be the very last piece of evidence in her testimony. Absolutely superb work from Tim Maloney, he completely exposed all her lies over the last three days, with one single email, right at the very end. 👏
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on May 24, 2024 14:10:19 GMT
One of tomorrow's newspapers should put her One Show email on their front page tomorrow! She is pure evil ... What a way to close her evidence. Moloney just disassembled her whole polite facade shtick. If there is one email that shows up PV for the nasty piece of work that she truly is, there you have it. An utter, fucking BITCH!!!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 24, 2024 14:20:43 GMT
Enlighten me please mate. Didn't realise that when I posted the above, that it was going to be the very last piece of evidence in her testimony. Absolutely superb work from Tim Maloney, he completed exposed all her lies over the last three days, with one single email, right at the very end. 👏 Thats the sort of thing columbo used to do. bravo tim
|
|
|
Post by delilahwhy on May 24, 2024 14:31:09 GMT
Evil cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 14:38:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 24, 2024 14:49:21 GMT
I cant wait for he publication. cps should be busy
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on May 24, 2024 14:52:16 GMT
I cant wait for he publication. cps should be busy It’s becoming harder and harder with each passing day of this inquiry for the CPS not to prosecute anyone.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 24, 2024 14:58:56 GMT
I cant wait for he publication. cps should be busy It’s becoming harder and harder with each passing day of this inquiry for the CPS not to prosecute anyone. it will happen though as bad as things like the blood scandal is the itv drama has really stirred the nation over the post office. granted it shouldnt have come to this but pandoras box has been opened. the SPMR's and the public demand it
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 15:18:42 GMT
It’s becoming harder and harder with each passing day of this inquiry for the CPS not to prosecute anyone. it will happen though as bad as things like the blood scandal is the itv drama has really stirred the nation over the post office. granted it shouldnt have come to this but pandoras box has been opened. the SPMR's and the public demand it Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. The only question now, seemingly being ... just where on earth are they going to find an impartial jury?!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 24, 2024 15:47:40 GMT
Pure class...when you consider what they put her through.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on May 24, 2024 17:44:42 GMT
I watch about 3 hours per week give or take. I actually agree with most of your points but where I differ is I suspect the Inquiry lawyers are so skilful, and so well trusted, that they can control how much the witnesses/culprits incriminate themselves or reveal. And that’s where I‘m a bit sceptical, for want of a better word ahead of the findings. They could put them to the sword if they wanted but they often avoid doing so by choice. It would upset the establishment and that’s not what the KCs were hired to do. There is more legal expertise in a Wright‘s pie than in my brain, so I‘m going on intuition mainly plus a nagging doubt that Williams is another Lord Hutton from the Dr Kelly/Dodgy Dossier Inquiry. I hope I‘m wrong anyway because this is a huge scandal. I cannot agree at all, that these KC's and lawyers are in any way influenced by not wanting to upset the establishment. If the establishment wanted to rig the outcome of the inquiry, then we wouldn't have some of the top professionals in the game asking the questions. I've actually found it quite refreshing to see a pillar of our establishment (judiciary & KC's) acting with such integrity, something of course, the present government has attempted to destroy on more than one occasion. In this example and in my opinion, Williams had ALREADY nailed her, when he asked the question "Why?". Her reply was always going to be irrelevant, he didn't NEED to put her to the sword with a follow up question dependent on what she said, indeed the job had already been completed, as soon as he'd trapped her with his question. Here’s an example of the kind of questioning I‘m referring to, from 2:46 to the groans in the gallery. Was he (Mark Davies) a trusted advisor? Very indirect answer that goes unchallenged. Mark Davies had political connections to Jack Straw which she possibly alludes to, but Jason Beer doesn’t react to that to establish what she means. These are things which could give the chair/judge room for manoeuvre if he needed it.
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on May 24, 2024 18:11:11 GMT
it will happen though as bad as things like the blood scandal is the itv drama has really stirred the nation over the post office. granted it shouldnt have come to this but pandoras box has been opened. the SPMR's and the public demand it Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. The only question now, seemingly being ... just where on earth are they going to find an impartial jury?! I think once that the absolute facts have been unequivocally established and everyone's role established at which stage, then any jury would (I think) then have to be guided quite accurately by a presiding judge as proceedings evolved. Having stood in crown court as a police officer giving evidence facts (your notebook) were obviously essential notwithstanding the incident may well have happened 6 months prior to court. Problematic technicalities need to be kept to a minimum. Pure opinion on my part obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2024 22:10:50 GMT
Buy that man a pint, he's having absolutely none of it!
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on May 25, 2024 7:35:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 25, 2024 11:40:52 GMT
Vernnels has built her own gallows after three days of her evidence. She spent the entire time obfuscating, lying, and trying to blame others for what happened. And, as Clayton Wood says above, she's now opened the door to those who bought Royal Mail when he says:
"The inquiry has heard that Ms Vennells removed a line from a Royal Mail prospectus about the Post Office's IT system.
The revelation could potentially have serious consequences, as it might mean the prospectus was inaccurate at the time of Royal Mail's privatisation."
But, as Paul says above, after this inquiry it's going to be very difficult to select a jury that is impartial. It would be useless to select me because I have already seen enough to convict her ten times over however a judge decided to guide me. Finally, those barristers who have represented the Post Office sub postmasters/mistresses are in a league of their own. They've been absolutely brilliant.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 25, 2024 12:51:15 GMT
I cannot agree at all, that these KC's and lawyers are in any way influenced by not wanting to upset the establishment. If the establishment wanted to rig the outcome of the inquiry, then we wouldn't have some of the top professionals in the game asking the questions. I've actually found it quite refreshing to see a pillar of our establishment (judiciary & KC's) acting with such integrity, something of course, the present government has attempted to destroy on more than one occasion. In this example and in my opinion, Williams had ALREADY nailed her, when he asked the question "Why?". Her reply was always going to be irrelevant, he didn't NEED to put her to the sword with a follow up question dependent on what she said, indeed the job had already been completed, as soon as he'd trapped her with his question. Here’s an example of the kind of questioning I‘m referring to, from 2:46 to the groans in the gallery. Was he (Mark Davies) a trusted advisor? Very indirect answer that goes unchallenged. Mark Davies had political connections to Jack Straw which she possibly alludes to, but Jason Beer doesn’t react to that to establish what she means. These are things which could give the chair/judge room for manoeuvre if he needed it. It's amazing how two different people can see the same thing so differently ... This is what I was on about in my reply to you above. There are some (maybe many) questions that he asks, where he's not actually interested in the reply she makes, the question itself, is the key point. He's not allowed to TELL her that Davies was her trusted advisor, so instead, he frames it as a question but in actual fact, HE himself, is making a statement. It's done in order to set up the other questions around that statement, he ALREADY knows that Davies IS her trusted advisor. It's exactly the same principle, when he asks her, does she know why Davies cut out everybody else from the email chain except her? And in return she gives another wishy washy answer. He's not actually interested in her answer to the question one bit because he already knows the answer to the question, that being, that Davies cut everybody else out of the email chain because what they are discussing, is absolutely dodgy as fuck and they can't risk the conversation going any further than her and her (here we go) ... 'trusted advisor'. He's exposing her (most importantly to Williams but also to everybody else watching) for the deceitful bitch that she is, by simply ASKING the questions, rather than having to rely on her answers. In my opinion, what we've been watching, is a professional right at the very top of his game and it's a been an absolute joy to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on May 25, 2024 13:59:04 GMT
Here’s an example of the kind of questioning I‘m referring to, from 2:46 to the groans in the gallery. Was he (Mark Davies) a trusted advisor? Very indirect answer that goes unchallenged. Mark Davies had political connections to Jack Straw which she possibly alludes to, but Jason Beer doesn’t react to that to establish what she means. These are things which could give the chair/judge room for manoeuvre if he needed it. It's amazing how two different people can see the same thing so differently ... This is what I was on about in my reply to you above. There are some (maybe many) questions that he asks, where he's not actually interested in the reply she makes, the question itself, is the key point. He's not allowed to TELL her that Davies was her trusted advisor, so instead, he frames it as a question but in actual fact, HE himself, is making a statement. It's done in order to set up the other questions around that statement, he ALREADY knows that Davies IS her trusted advisor. It's exactly the same principle, when he asks her, does she know why Davies cut out everybody else from the email chain except her? And in return she gives another wishy washy answer. He's not actually interested in her answer to the question one bit because he already knows the answer to the question, that being, that Davies cut everybody else out of the email chain because what they are discussing, is absolutely dodgy as fuck and they can't risk the conversation going any further than her and her (here we go) ... 'trusted advisor'. He's exposing her (most importantly to Williams but also to everybody else watching) for the deceitful bitch that she is, by simply ASKING the questions, rather than having to rely on her answers. In my opinion, what we've been watching, is a professional right at the very top of his game and it's a been an absolute joy to watch. The most incisive question of this whole thing was your point up thread Paul "if it was a part of the SPM's contract (and it was) that any shortfalls had to be made up 100% by the SPM's, then just what was the point of them stealing from the Post Office in the first place?" That's the beginning, the end and the meat in between. I didn't come to look at this until the Vennells bit so I can't comment, but if your fundamental point has not been asked then that is more mindboggling than the point itself.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on May 25, 2024 18:14:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 3, 2024 12:33:48 GMT
Member of the inquiry team to ill to question someone.
Big week with perky perkins in the chair this week for two days.
Be interesting to see what bollocks she can offer up.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 3, 2024 21:46:05 GMT
if i had around 900 serious thefts from my post office I would not be able to believe that 900 normal people were stealing huge amounts from me 900 little old ladies have gone rogue. Yeah it's amazing their audit department didn't challenge any of it.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 4, 2024 10:29:10 GMT
Dangerous today's lawyer.
A voice as soft as silk.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 4, 2024 12:46:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jun 4, 2024 13:19:54 GMT
Here's my written (by someone else) statement and I'm staying in Oz. Bet she couldn't get out of the country quick enough knowing what she does and the shit was about to hit the fan.
|
|