Furious Swinson claimed Paula Vennells deceived her

Jo Swinson

During her evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry former minister Jo Swinson today highlighted the mendacity of the Post Office and what she saw as the conniving “duplicitous” behaviour of her chief civil service advisor.

It all centres on the first Clarke Advice, the legal document written in July 2013 which was kept hidden from the government, MPs, campaigners and their lawyers until it was finally dragged out of the Post Office during the Court of Appeal hearings in 2021.

The Advice informs the Post Office that it has been using an unreliable witness (Gareth Jenkins) in its prosecutions of Subpostmasters. It states Jenkins’ evidence has been fatally undermined and that all Post Office prosecutions need to be reviewed. Today Swinson called it a “bombshell” and told the Inquiry she was “staggered” that no one at the Post Office told her of its existence.

It appears Swinson read it for the first time whilst preparing for the Inquiry. Today she said: “I’m not a lawyer but when I read that, when I saw that document in the briefing notes I couldn’t believe it. You do not need to be a lawyer. How could anyone read that document and not realise that this is something which demands urgent attention?”

Eye to Eye

The advice was written by Simon Clarke, a criminal barrister whose firm was engaged by the Post Office to prosecute Subpostmasters. It was triggered by the production of independent investigators Second Sight’s interim report which suggested the Horizon IT data used to prosecute Subpostmasters was potentially unsound.

Swinson told the inquiry that Paula Vennells, the Chief Executive of the Post Office, clearly knew about the Clarke Advice and yet didn’t tell her. Towards the end of her evidence session, Swinson was taken to a letter written by Paula Vennells about the termination of Second Sight and the closure of the mediation scheme, which happened on Swinson’s watch. In the letter, amongst other reassurances, Vennells says:

“Having now completed its reinvestigation of each of the cases, Post Office has found no reason to conclude that any original prosecution was unsafe.”

Swinson told the Inquiry: “I just want to be clear as well that this was not only a set of assurances that were given to me in writing, these were assurances that Paula Vennells delivered to me in person across the table, looking me in the eye and telling me that there was no problem: that they had investigated, that they had not found anything that would cause concern, which I cannot square with that email that I have now seen that she sent in October 2013… about an unsafe witness and their obligations of disclosure.”

Woman of the Cloth

Paula Vennells giving evidence to the Inquiry in May 2024

In Swinson’s mind this was damning. “She knew about the Clarke advice and the lack of credibility of the key witness that they had relied on for so many prosecutions. I consider that she did not tell me that at the time – in the summer and autumn of 2013 – to be massively problematic, nor at any point in the subsequent 18 months, in any of our catch-ups.”

For Swinson, that Vennells “would sit and look me in the eye and give me those assurances and then put that in writing… it just beggars belief because she knew that there were… problems with convictions and the investigations and the safety thereof, because she had been told that in the Clarke memo.”

Possibly playing to gallery, but equally perhaps articulating the same disgust many members of the public feel towards Vennells, Swinson told the Inquiry: “You know, in that first briefing note [given to her before she first met with Paula Vennells in 2012], one of the bullet points which I remember – because it was unusual – was that Paula Vennells is also an ordained vicar. So she was sitting there, yes as the chief executive of a national organisation… but she was also sitting there with the moral authority of somebody who was a minister of the cloth, not of some kind of slick chief executive who seemed to care only about profit. And I believed her. I believed her…”

After lunch, Samantha Leek KC, who represents Paula Vennells, took this up with Swinson.

“Are you aware that there is no evidence to suggest that Ms Vennells was ever shown either of the Simon Clarke advices by Susan Crichton or any other post office lawyer before she left the Post Office?” she asked.
Swinson replied: “I’ve been shown an email from October 2013 where Paula Vennells emails Alice Perkins [Post Office chair]… I may not remember precisely, but it basically says along the lines of ‘my concern about Horizon… is our obligations of disclosure regarding an unsafe witness’, which to me says that she knows that there was an unsafe witness and therefore is referring to the Clarke Advice.”
Leek said: “Is it right to say then the extent of your knowledge about what Paula Vennells was told is based on that particular email?”
“Well she certainly didn’t tell me about it, and I wish she had”, replied Swinson.
“Yes” said Leek, “but I’m trying to explore with you what you knew about what she had been told about the Simon Clarke advices and I want to establish is that based solely on that email?”
“For me it’s clear she knew of the at least existence of the Clarke Advice and I would have thought that any chief executive being given information of that level would have asked to then see the document on which that came from, but I don’t know if she did or didn’t”, admitted Swinson.

Paula Vennells is adamant she didn’t see the Clarke Advice during her tenure as CEO of the Post Office. But how much did she know about it? The October 2013 email from Paula Vennells to Alice Perkins is not clear. In it, Vennells writes:

“My concern re Sparrow [the Post Office codename for Horizon issues] currently is our obligations of disclosure, re an unsafe witness… We do not think it is material but it could be high profile.”

Asked about this when she gave evidence in May, Vennells said: “the adjective “unsafe” is not something that – in relation to the word “witness” – is quite a specific description, and I’m not sure that that’s something that I would have just used coincidentally. And when I looked at this email, this is some considerable time, so this is three months after I found out about Mr Jenkins being stood down. So I don’t know whether, at this stage, I had been given more information about him or not.”

Richard Canard

Another villain in Swinson’s mind is her senior advisor on Post Office matters, Richard Callard, who also happened to be the government’s representative on the Post Office board. Callard came across as a slimy individual when he gave evidence to the Inquiry last week, and it seems Swinson holds him responsible for keeping important information from her and potentially undermining her position.

Richard Callard giving evidence earlier this month

In her witness statement, Swinson says Callard “one of the key officials who was supposed to support me in my Ministerial role with regard to Post Office matters, instead using his Departmental position, access and contacts to work on behalf of POL [Post Office Ltd] to seek to persuade me to do what POL wanted”.

This included trying to bounce Swinson into approving a payoff for a Chief Financial Officer the Post Office and the government’s Shareholder Executive (ShEx) wanted to sack, withholding concerns about Paula Vennells’ performance as chief executive and more sinisterly – trying to undermine Second Sight, the independent investigators loathed by the Post Office because they were intent on getting to the truth of the scandal and were uncovering highly damaging information. It was Callard who informed Swinson that there were concerns Second Sight had “gone native” to the Postmasters’ cause and Callard who withheld information about the Post Office’s intention to sack them.

Swinson wrote in her Witness Statement: “It never occurred to me at the time that information from ShEx might be anything other than fully accurate. Indeed, my experience of the civil service was one of extreme caution in terms of establishing facts… In hindsight, I now question whether the ShEx officials were acting as the Government’s representative on the POL Board or the POL Board’s representative in Government. It seems it may have been they who had ‘gone native’, not Second Sight.”

In one briefing paper Richard Callard sent to Swinson about the Subpostmaster cases going through the mediation scheme, Callard wrote:

“In those cases that have been mediated or settled, POL considers it should have conducted itself better operationally, but it is important to stress that these are not system related.”

It transpired that the Post Office Project Sparrow subcommittee was deliberately funnelling cases through the mediation scheme which did not concern Horizon problems. The evidence for this came from a Sparrow subcommittee meeting minute which states “it was agreed that effort should be made to try and accelerate cases that were not thematic and might be useful to show the Minister”.

Years of Anguish

Swinson only found out about this when reviewing all the papers provided to her to aid her preparation for the Inquiry. She told the Inquiry:

“When I look at the Sparrow minutes from April, where it is minuted that they should accelerate the specific cases that are not thematic because it might be useful to show the Minister, I consider that that is a premeditated manipulation process specifically designed to reassure me that there isn’t a problem by presenting cases which are not representative. As one would imagine in anything like this, there might be some simpler cases, by presenting those as representative of the vast number of postmaster cases… to me that just feels duplicitous, to actually set out to prioritise those cases so that they can then pretend to me that those are representative.”

Julian Blake

Towards the end of her evidence, Julian Blake, who was asking questions on behalf of the Inquiry, suggested to Swinson it might be easy for politicians to blame the Post Office or their officials. He asked her instead to reflect on what she did “to contribute to the scandal”.

Swinson answered: “I should have met with Sir Alan Bates. I wished I’d asked to meet with Second Sight directly. I wish on a couple of occasions I had pushed more and probed more. One of those was when I was told that the Post Office was changing their prosecution policy and I wasn’t told that in a formal briefing, it was off the cuff, and I think my response at the time was kind of relief…”

Swinson realised relief was the wrong response: “I wish I’d asked more questions at that point because I suspect that… ultimately, if post office had been frank about that advice they’d received… years of anguish could have been saved for Subpostmasters, just as could have been years earlier if that Clarke [advice] had been properly acted upon at the time. And I didn’t know about it and I wish I had.”

Swinson finished with an emotional: “I’m just really sorry that I asked lots of questions and it wasn’t enough.”

Additional notes and quotes

Swinson’s fury

Swinson was “furious” with the Post Office for their delayed response to the 17 Dec 2014 Westminster Hall debate. Swinson said “MPs were forcefully putting forward points on behalf of their constituents and receiving an entirely different story from the Post Office, and that was very difficult for me. go into each case and start looking through spreadsheets and try to work out… I didn’t have the skill set to do that.. and try to work out who was right and who was wrong.” Swinson told the Post Office to send the Post Office mediation scheme and the independent investigations to MPs so they could have a clearer idea of what was going on with their individual constituents.

It took the Post Office until 15 January to deliver its general rebuttal to the MPs claims during the Westminster Hall debate. Swinson told the Inquiry: “I was actually pretty furious. I mean, this is the 15th of January. The debate was on the 17th of December, right? Most of us took Christmas day off and I had some time with the family but we’re working hard. Sir Alan Bates was working hard sending a letter on the 22nd of December. The fact that Post Office hadn’t pulled their finger out to get this response sorted quicker than basically four weeks after the debate felt to me to be ridiculous.

They’re “at it”

In her witness statement, Swinson wrote:

“I recall Ms Vennells explaining to me in a tone of taking me into her confidence, with something of a pained expression, that while it was a sad situation, the reality was that some subpostmasters ‘had their fingers in the till’ or something to that effect.”

Asked about it at the Inquiry, Swinson told Blake: “I’ll be really straightforward, I’m not going to be able to give you the exact words that Paula used. It was more than a decade ago… But what she was trying to clearly… explain to me, was… although these might seem to be lovely people, clearly some of them are just ‘at it’ is what she was trying to convey. It was that kind of tone of ‘we have looked into this and it is very sad but that is just the reality and so we have to act’.”

Tail wagging the dog

In what I thought was a revealing aside, Swinson told the Inquiry that in the first weeks of her tenure, she wasn’t entirely sure what was in her portfolio. This is possible understandable given she had two jobs in two different ministries, being Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs in the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”).

Swinson told Blake:

“I mean, there was lots of bizarre things that you wouldn’t necessarily assume were in the portfolio. So I would often find out what was in my portfolio when I would receive correspondence that I was being asked to answer.”

I suspect it suited the civil servants to tell her as little as possible. This suggests they did.

For blow-by-blow updates on Swinson’s evidence and the documents which reveal what she did and didn’t see as minister, click here.


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

51 responses to “Furious Swinson claimed Paula Vennells deceived her”

  1. So the ordained vicar, with the “moral authority of someone who was a minister of the cloth,” used the term “unsafe witness” by chance? She never saw the Clarke Advice?

    Vennels’ tenure as CEO seemed to be focused on PR and image, not morals or ethics. POL was simply a rung in her ladder to CBE and other illustrious appointments.

  2. Fujitsu Whistleblower avatar
    Fujitsu Whistleblower

    Fixed it for you, Mr Martin (below), both in attribution and to the extent of the quote –

    > “A parade of liars, bullies and amnesiacs” – Sam Stein KC.

    Hear him here –
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5O00WFjyk

    This learned counsel was always a master of understatement – sometimes to the extent of being guilty of gilding the lily, of sugaring the pill.

    So, exactly like Bogie in Casablanca, I am NEVER going to say “Play it again, Sam.”

    Instead, I say “Play it forte, Sam.”

  3. I simply cannot understand why SHEXE were so in bed with POL. Evidence shows them parroting POLs words in communications even sharing correspondence from Ministers et al with POL. Why?

  4. Skyli Orhinus avatar

    Once again we have an article implying that the civil service were very active in protecting Horizon and Fujitsu.
    I have watched some of the inquiry proceedings and read many articles and opinions around the scandal. However, I can’t help feeling that the worst miscarriage of justice in our history is being followed by the worst whitewash. Indeed, those who were instrumental in actively hiding the truth from the courts and, apparantly, the government are being pilloried by the inquiry and the press, but one fundamental question remains unanswered and unasked: Why did successive goverments bend over backwards to protect Fujitsu?

  5. Andrew Martin avatar

    Apologies re my comment above. The quote is from Sam Stein KC in his verbal summary of Phase 4 (paragraph 57 of transcript) Feb 2nd AM session Closing Summaries. However Henry’s summary is still a materpiece.

  6. Andrew Martin avatar

    A parade of “liars, bullies and amnesiacs” Edward Henry KC.

    If you so nothing else read his summary of Phase 4 evidence to the Inquiry. Its 41 pages long but every paragraph is a searing indictment of the conduct of all the players in this farrago of disgust and corruption (It is beautifully written and gripping).

    https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/SUBS0000027.pdf

    Buckle yourself in it names names and doesn’t pull its punches.

    1. Peter Burfitt avatar

      Thank you for this. Interesting indeed – but partial. I doubt Sir Wyn will agree with all that is alleged, but I’m sure it goes some way towards the final resolution, hopefully.

  7. Loved it when Vennells’ lawyer was trying to get a yes/no answer from Swinson about the Clarke advice and Swinson’s assertion Vennells must have seen it – good luck on that one luv, and for once I wasn’t shouting at the telly when the Politician wouldn’t play ball, Swinson was right in what she was saying, how could Vennells have known about the unsafe Expert Witness unless she saw or was briefed on it ?

  8. The questioning of most of these witnesses reminds me of the John Bird / John Fortune sketches.

    Q: George Parr, you were Chair of the Post Office from 2009-2015?

    A: Well, thinking about it I do seem to recall that I was — or was it in a dream — but for only two days a month.

    Q: During your tenure, what did you do?

    A: Well of course that depends on the meaning of the word ‘do’.

    Q: Were two days a month long enough for you to complete your work?

    A: You faithless ones need to remember that a day isn’t as short as you think.

    When there was a lot to do, Paula used to point her finger at the sun, and lo and behold, as it says in the book of Joshua, 10:13-14, “The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day”.

    Etc., etc.

    1. Thank you for this bit of levity that made me chuckle in the midst of “the worst miscarriage of justice” in British history.

  9. Lindsay Scott avatar

    I have watched with utter amazement now from afar in New Zealand on the inquiry.
    It is unfathomable that so many civil servants were beholden to their peers and to protect their jobs, they were prepared to lie to Ministers. I do hope that the leading players in the scandal face criminal charges. And lastly, hope soon that all the effected Sub-Postmaster’s get the compensation due to them

  10. I was quite taken by Swinson saying she’d raised complaints about the quality of her Red Box contents.

    Sadly her concern was for the number of typos and spelling mistakes, not for the quality of information in the submissions.

    Presentation over substance.

    1. Typos etc are indicative of laziness and lack of proper review, so I don’t think they’re all that irrelevant, just further confirmation of the poor quality work being done throughout the civil service

  11. Swinson was as culpable as Davey in not following up so many red flags during her time as Minister. But she is absolutely right to point the finger at Vennells for lying to her.

    The email from Vennells to Perkins which you quote, Nick, is dated 21 October 2013, so by that stage there is written evidence that Vennells was aware of an unsafe witness in relation to past prosecutions. But, after conceding that point, under further cross-examination by Jason Beer during her oral evidence to the Inquiry on 23 May 2024, Vennells ‘remembered’ a corridor conversation with Lesley Sewell dating further back to mid-2013 to the effect that in Vennells’ own words: ‘the Post Office expert from Fujitsu, whom we had used in past cases, now had to be stood down because he had not revealed… one or two bugs that he knew about in a case, and… I think it was Mrs Misra’s.’

    In her letter dated 9 March 2015 to Swinson, Vennells wrote: ‘as prosecutor Post Office has a continuing duty after a prosecution has concluded to disclose immediately any information that has subsequently come to light which might undermine its prosecution case or support the case of the defendant. Having now completed its reinvestigation of each of the cases, Post Office has found no reason to conclude that any original prosecution was unsafe’.

    Since the corridor conversation with Lesley Sewell of mid-2013 is curiously still seared in Ms Vennells’ memory twenty-one years later, the obvious question is why in mid-2013 or even as late as March 2015, when she is clearly documented as knowing about the Post Office’s duty as prosecutor, Vennells did not immediately contact Mrs Misra’s lawyers to alert them to the unsafe witness POL had put up in court. This is notwithstanding her continued denials that she saw the Clarke Advice of 15 July 2013 and her assertions that she was unaware of all the discussions that were going on between POL’s own and external lawyers.

    It would be interesting to know from any lawyers reading this, whether deliberately withholding information from the Courts in this way might be classed as a criminal offence?

    In her March 2015 letter to Swinson, Vennells refers to POL’s ‘reinvestigation of all of the cases’. As far as I can see, the only reinvestigation exercise that had been undertaken by March 2015, was the Cartwright King Sift Review. But this only dealt with prosecution cases post January 2010, which was the starting date that the Post Office chose, seemingly to exclude consideration of Legacy Horizon. And we know that between the beginning of 2000 and the end of 2009, Post Office conducted 536 prosecutions.

    So, Vennells appears to have misled a Minister in March 2015. And leaked taped conversations have indicated that Vennells was aware of the possibility of remote access back in 2013 and even received an audit letter from Ernst & Young back in 2011 implying that remote access was possible. She therefore has been accused of misleading the Business Select Committee in February 2015.

    So, even if the Metropolitan Police are slow in their investigations, there do appear to be two examples of Vennells misleading Parliament. It is unclear what sanctions may be open to Parliament for contempt of Parliament, though Wikipedia suggests that the House of Lords has the power to fine ‘Strangers’ (i.e. non-members) such as Vennells as well as to order imprisonment for an indefinite term. As the country anticipates a new Government committed to improving standards in public life, a period of imprisonment for Vennells would serve as a timely marker for other CEOs who seek to cover up miscarriages of justice.

    1. Plenty of evidence PO misled MPs. Unfortunately misleading parliament isn’t what it used to be after PM Johnson did it so egregiously.

      1. Parliament has very rarely exercised its powers against individuals who are in contempt of Parliament, which is why the sanctions open to Parliament are so vague. There is very little precedent and, when used, Parliament’s powers have generally been directed against Members, with the natural sanction being suspension or disqualification from Parliament. My point is that this is a golden opportunity for Parliament to set a precedent by trying Vennells for contempt which , in my view, she has shown on at least on two occasions. It would set down a marker to CEOs that they cannot simply turn up to Select Committees and lie with impunity.

  12. Whilst it was refreshing to actually hear someone naming names, Swinson’s revelations were high spots in what was at times the most unlistenable evidence session I have watched to date. In an attempt to perhaps divert attention from her own shortcomings in the scandal, she subjected us to a veritable tsunami of irrelevant and mundane diatribe. As well as the warnings to slow down for the stenographer, I was surprised she wasn’t asked to focus on answering the question that had been asked. As a consequence, it appeared that Moyà Greene’s session in the afternoon looked rushed

    1. Typical of a politician, Swinson answered her OWN questions – not the ones she was actually asked, if she could help it. However, in terms of “the most unlistenable evidence session” I’m guessing you didn’t hear former Conservative MP, Kelly Tollhurst on Wednesday afternoon then? (She was also Minister for BIS a few years after Swinson held the role). Tollhurst is a woman who will take at least 50 words when one would do (yes or no) to convey absolutely nothing of any substance. I became SO infuriated with her I had to go and do something more interesting whilst listening to her – weeding my drive!

    2. Jane Stringer avatar

      As well as asking her to slow down and shorten her answers, I wish Mr Blake, had have asked her to sit on her hands, too!

  13. Roger Hitching avatar

    The problem both Liberal ministers had, it seems, was a naivety, the liberals have not had a minister for a very long time, and thought that “yes Minister” was a joke. They were manipulated by civil servants, something the new Labour ministers should take note of. You can understand why SPADS exist, somebody in the room who is not part of the civil service machine.

  14. Anders Karlsson avatar
    Anders Karlsson

    Swedish citizen here, has just recently started digging in to this scandal, I was first alerted to it by a Swedish Radio program about it earlier this year. This is just awful, and the more I read the sadder I get as a lifelong anglophile.
    Among all the slimy, sometimes intelligent sometimes just plain stupid politicians appearing, I am surprised no one (to a degree excluding Arbuthnot) has come forward and take the stand of clearing up this mess and take a hard stand against people like Vennels, Jenkins, Dunk, Bradford (why in heavens is he still working for POL? That alone shows is clear light that Nick Read is a moron, if what Read says about “transforming” POL, Bradshaw would have been fired ages ago. Or is Read planning to continue to use Bradshaw to punch people in the face, figuratively, that does pay up some random amount of money to POL?
    A smart, and possibly honest (if that exists) politician could easily drum up positive support and publicity for himself by doing that. That it is not happening might be because the themselves all have “their fingers in the till” or because they are too stupid. Or both.
    And Nick, really good work, much appreciated.

    1. Hi Anders,
      We (hubbie and I) have also been following this intensely (from Australia) having watched the last ‘Panorama’ program about it, shown on ABC over here, and then the ITV drama on our Channel 7. What is truly appalling is that it has gone on so long and even today the subpm’s havent got their full redress, having left that to POL to manage!! Whilst I agree with you about the obnoxious Bradshaw, in my view the real fault lies with the numerous lawyers, both internal and external, who knew full well ‘that what was happening was illegal yet carried on regardless. From Neuberger and Grabiner down to Altman and Clarke and the in-house lawyers – Singh, Aujard, Williams and not forgetting Jane Macleod who has hopped it back to Oz and is refusing to give oral evidence, probably because she’s a real s***. The worst in my opinion is Andrew Parsons from Womble Bond Dickinson (incredibly still employed there!) who is closely involved at every sleazy turn. Whilst the likes of Bradshaw need prosecuting, I hope this Inquiry doesn’t end up, like so many have before, with the top end people getting away with it whilst the minions are penalised. We call it the ‘sacking the tea lady syndrome’!
      As usual thanks Nick for your incredible reporting.

      1. Anders Karlsson avatar
        Anders Karlsson

        Agreed, it is just that Bradshaw strikes as such an unpleasant, lying bully. Awful person. The PO says they want to change, and at the same time they keep this guy around.

  15. Towards the end of Swinson’s evidence giving we saw some fairly desperate, hair splitting and nit picking questions from Samantha Leek KC on behalf of Paula Vennells. It would be fair to assume that, if the aforementioned Vennells does end up in a court of law facing criminal charges at any time in the future, we will have some idea of what her defence will be like.
    “You claim that Ms Vennells was CEO of Post Office at the time, but did you actually see her sign her contract?”

    1. Well if they apply the POL approach to contracts she’ll be in trouble.

      Seems quite a number of SPMRs were prosecuted having never seen, never mind signed the contract!

  16. what the inquiry has had to listen to in some instances is an “orchestrated litanly of lies” quote Justice Peter Mahon, Royal commission into the Erebus Air NewZealand disaster

  17. I am glad she laid into Callard,his appearance was shameful,his wads of cash email about Jo Hamilton was horrendous and when he tried to Teflon his way out of questioning by JB about his use of the word Teflon to describe Paula Vennells it was embarrassing, nothing sticks

  18. Whilst it was good to see some guilty parties actually named for a change (e.g. Vennells and Callard in this case), I couldn’t help thinking that Swinson was, as Nick suggests, playing to the gallery much of the time, in full knowledge that any criticism of Vennells in particular would go down well and deflect attention from her own lack of a proper response. Let us remind ourselves that she was actually Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs during crucial years (2012-15) when the whole thing was unfolding. By her account, she was seemingly more engaged and keen to get to the bottom of things than her fellow Lib Dem and Chocolate Teapot, Ed Davey, but her actions (or lack of them) didn’t always bear that out.

    Yes, POL at many levels; their lawyers, Fujitsu and ShEx/UKGI are surely going to take the rap in one way or another, but politicians in government are also going to have to take responsibility for not getting to grips with this huge miscarriage of justice and it seems to me that, in this case, a clutch of Lib Dems, namely: Cable, Lamb, Davey AND Swinson are going to be in the front of the queue.

  19. I was interested on Jo Swinson – a humanist – https://humanists.uk/about/our-people/honorary-members/ having a take on the vicar-dom of Paula Vennells.

  20. Congratulations on the website landing page.Very engaging! Well done to you and your guru.
    You have even more of my admiration listening to Civil Servents, politicians and execs who are all so smooth ( yet earnest) in their blamelessness – its truly soul sapping just trying to watch.
    Keep up the good work, you and the Postmasters have worldwide support.
    Bernie (from New Zealand)

  21. Thank you Nick for your excellent blogs. Along with Computer Weekly and Private Eye, you deserve great credit for bringing and keeping this scandal in the public domain.
    After another depressing day listening to Swinson and Greene, I decided to have a bit of fun and list my top 15 most odious people to appear at the inquiry in alphabet order.
    Aujard
    Callard
    Davies
    Dunks
    Flemington
    Grab-it-and-run
    Ismay
    Jenkins
    Parker
    Parsons
    Perkins
    Scott
    Talbot
    Vennells
    Williams

    1. Geoff. Hewitt avatar

      What about Humphrey Bogart, oh sorry, my mistake, Angela van den Bogerd, the comic turn that was Jarnail Singh, the lawyer who didn’t know how to work his computer, and of course, George ‘Horizon was robust, my friend Paula told me’ Thomson?

      It would probably be possible to list the top fifty, and still have power to add, I fear.

      1. I was just about to suggest the same three! We also shouldn’t forget former POL investigator (so-called), Gary Thomas, the author of the infamous email to Graham Ward and other investigator colleagues stating: “Because I want to prove that there is FFFFiiinnn no ‘Case for the Justice Of Thieving Sub Postmasters’ and that we were the best Investigators they ever had and they were all crooks”. There are a few other investigator members of POL’s Security Team who could join him on the list (I can’t remember all their names currently) and at the very least, all the bonuses they were paid for monies they wrongly recovered from innocent SPMs should be clawed back from them (even if it bankrupts THEM) and added to the compensation pot for the SPMs.

        1. Singh and Ward definitely, and let’s not forget the cowardly Jane MacLeod – just because she refused to appear doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be on the sh!tlist. Now for the difficult question of who drops off the top 15.

    2. Alan Cornforth avatar
      Alan Cornforth

      Did you not see George Thomson?!

    3. Wot, no Singh?

    4. No Jarnail Singh?!? Or was he too utterly useless to count as odious?

    5. Good summary: be interesting to rank them. I’d put Roderick W pretty high on the list.

    6. Perfect list of roques liars and villains…..

      100% agree…

    7. Katharine O'Connor avatar
      Katharine O’Connor

      I’m glad you specified alphabetical order

    8. you missed out ‘B’
      Bradshaw
      Surely must be near the top of your alphabetic list of Post Office villains

    9. What about Singh, also Bradshaw and his various other nasty investigator mates?

    10. Christopher Lennon avatar
      Christopher Lennon

      Yet people voted for them in the general election in large numbers and the irrelevant and ineffectual Liberal Democrat party now has 72 seats in the House of Commons.

    11. Christopher Lennon avatar
      Christopher Lennon

      But not necessarily in that order and there are omissions (see comments below).

  22. *I found her evidence to be quite compelling to be honest. No doubt not enough for a growing number of observers who only seem to want drama and blood, however…

    1. Rosalie Clayton avatar
      Rosalie Clayton

      Reluctantly I felt the same.

    2. I also found Swinson’s evidence compelling, not least because it instructed us on how government actually works i.e. the civil service blob are the ones who are really in charge (as the wonderful “Yes Minister” told us all those years ago).

  23. I found her evidence to be quite compelling to be honest. No doubt enough for a growing number of observers to only appear to want drama and blood, though…

  24. The Ministers come across as very passive, and seem to be run by their civil servants. Under our system people are appointed as Ministers with no knowledge whatsoever of their portfolio. Shareholder executive went native, Cooper and Callard joined the cult. They went into the bunker with Rodric etc.

    1. Geoff. Hewitt avatar

      Certainly the impression that all four ministers give this week was that they were passive, trusting, souls who relied entirely on whatever their Civil Servants chose to tell them. Before, of course, complaining about their Red Boxes and how unreasonable their workload was, of course. The Civil Servants, in turn, seem to have taken the easiest course of action, by simply relying on Post Office information, and repeating what was told to them without question.

      Ironically, I understand that one of the Covid Report findings was that ministers were too willing to believe everything that ‘experts’ told them, and didn’t ask enough questions.

      There appears to be something of a consistent theme, here, I suggest.

  25. Peter Marshall avatar
    Peter Marshall

    You know what the say about buses, that’s 3/4 that Vennels has been thrown under this week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Tags

Alan Bates alice perkins Alwen Lyons Andrew Winn Andy Dunks Andy Parsons Bates v Post Office BBC Bonusgate CCRC Chris Aujard Clarke Advice False Accounts Fujitsu Gareth Jenkins Grabiner HCAB Horizon Inquiry Interim Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh Lee Castleton Lord Arbuthnot Mark Davies Neuberger Nicki Arch Nick Read Noel Thomas Outcasts Creative Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Rebecca Thomson Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Rob Wilson Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra ShEx Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Tracy Felstead UKGI

Categories