Paula Vennells and Mark Davies: Led by the (brown) nose

Mark Davies giving evidence on 14 May and Paula Vennells giving evidence on 24 May 2024

In his witness statement to the public inquiry, former Post Office Director of Communications Mark Davies claimed Paula Vennells acted with “integrity and care” when dealing with the issues raised by campaigning Subpostmasters. In the same statement he states Vennells is a woman of “deep integrity” who is “guided by deeply held personal values.”

On 17 Dec 2014 Vennells celebrated Davies’ professional skill and her own much-vaunted integrity and care. Vennells declared a recently-broadcast One Show film on the suffering of prosecuted, hounded and sacked Subpostmasters had left her “bored”. She dismissed the MP (Kevan Jones) who appeared in the segment as “full of bluster” (mocking him by asking “who?”), and stated that long-term campaigner Jo Hamilton “lacked passion”. 

Mark Davies, in Vennells’ opinion, had done a brilliant job on the piece, achieving “a balance of reporting beyond anything I could have hoped for”, right down to the “statements stamped across the screen with the Post Office sign as a back drop”. Judge for yourself how boring or otherwise this is:

Get a room

On 28 December, after Vennells had been awarded a CBE in the New Year’s Honours List, Vennells wrote to Davies: “I wanted to thank you personally for your huge contribution towards this honour… I have lost count of the number of times I have relied on your judgement, listened to your wisdom and then taken your advice over the last few years. Your call was always the right one: guiding us through stormy waters of all kinds.”

On 21 March 2019, after the Post Office board had agreed its batshit attempt to have the judge in Bates v Post Office recuse himself from the group litigation on grounds of his apparent bias, the pair exchanged sickly text messages.

“I was so proud of the board yesterday”, spoffed Davies. “It’s hard work but I think we are doing a good job.”

“Yes, I felt the same about the board”, Vennells simpered. “Very proud and pleased. Difficult but completely the right decision.”

As Vennells acknowledged on Day 2 of her evidence, the pair stayed in touch after both had left the Post Office, with Davies in 2020 providing “media lines” for Vennells to take in preparation for the Inquiry. They were clearly close.

Adverse media coverage vs helping falsely convicted people

Vennells thought Davies was an underling she could trust and whose advice she could rely on. On 6 July 2013, Vennells was trying to work out how to respond to Second Sight’s Interim Report. Although the report wasn’t published until 8 July, Vennells and her team had early sight (forgive the pun) of it. Vennells sent an email to her executive team in which she knocked about a few ideas including the possibility of getting “external lawyers” to look at “our 500 prosecutions” and “review all cases of false accounting, eg., over the last 5-10 years” repeating further down the email “could we review all?”

Mark Davies, who was cc’d in the email, responded the next morning. For some reason he chose to exclude the General Counsel and other execs on the cc list and send his reply to Vennells directly.

“I am very concerned,” wrote Davies “that we may get to a position where we go so far in our commitments that we actually fuel the story and turn it into something bigger than it is. I am not at all complacent about the issues, but there is real danger in going too far in commitments about past cases.

I say this for two reasons:

– first the substance of the report doesn’t justify this response. Indeed the report is at such a level that our current media strategy would mean there would be some coverage, but not very much (the usual suspects). 

If we say publicly that we will look at past cases (and whatever we say to JA or JFSA will be public) whether from recent history or going further back, we will open this up very significantly, into front page news. In media terms it becomes mainstream, very high profile. It would also give JA a very strong case for asking for a Parliamentary statement from BIS.

– my second concern is the impact that this would have more broadly. It would have the “ballistic” impact which AB fears. It could lead to a very public narrative about the very nature of the business, raising questions about Horizon… and having an impact on public views about the Post Office and really widening the issue to the whole network.”

This is about a clear a message as Vennells could get. Don’t look to see if past prosecutions are unsafe because it will generate negative media coverage.

What did she do?

A grossly improper perspective

Jason Beer KC picked it up with Vennells at the Inquiry:

JB: Do you agree his first point says you should make a decision about the extent to which you review possible past miscarriages of justice by reference to the extent of media coverage that it will generate?
PV: It does say… it could be read that way. That wasn’t my…
JB: Is there another way of reading it?
PV: I wouldn’t have…
JB: …and, if there is, please explain which words help to read it in a different way. He’s saying, “Don’t go back 10 years or say that you’ll go back 10 years, our current approach would mean there’s going to be some coverage but not very much, the usual suspects. If we ay we’ll look back at past cases, we’ll be on the front page”. Isn’t he directly saying…
PV: Yes, I can see that that’s what he is saying.

Beer wondered if this might be a “grossly improper perspective”. Vennells agreed.

“To what extent did what Mr Davies advises here affect your decision making?” he asked.

“I would never… have taken a decision based on the advice of one colleague”, replied Vennells. “Never. My way of working was to take as many different views as I possibly could and to involve those individuals in the decision making as much as I possibly could.”

Bum steer

Beer took Vennells to her reply to Davies. In it, she says: “Mark, thanks for this… You are right to call this out. And I will take your steer.”

“You did take the advice of the PR guy, didn’t you?” asked Beer.

“I really don’t remember it relating to the decision…” started Vennells, but her reply was halted by a loud, derisory reaction from the public gallery. Once the Inquiry chair, Sir Wyn Williams had intervened to restore order, Vennells told Beer: “I understand how this reads but I don’t recall making any conscious decision not to go back and put in place a review of all past criminal cases.”

Beer noted that further down in Vennells reply to Davies, she told him “There are two objectives, the most urgent being to manage the media. The second is to make sure we do address the concerns of [James Arbuthnot] and Alan Bates.”

Beer asked: “Do you accept that this exchange of emails shows that, in making decisions as the substance as to what the Post Office should do, ie whether it, itself, should seek to review whether there had been past miscarriages of justice, you took into account the views of your media adviser, as to the extent to which your decision would meet with front page news?”

After blethering a bit, Vennells replied: “I absolutely don’t accept that I took a decision to not review past criminal cases based on a media outcome. I didn’t take any decision on that. I wouldn’t have been able to do so and it was… would have been such an important decision that would have had to have gone to the Board.”

Earlier, Beer had asked “Do you agree that your nascent idea here of a review of all prosecutions of false accounting, if it had been carried into effect, may have avoided a lost decade until miscarriages of justice were discovered?”

Vennells agreed. “It may well have done”, she said.

O well…

Other posts on Vennells’ evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry:

Vennells Day 1: Five things we learned
Vennells Day 2: Cover-up finally acknowledged
Vennells Day 2: Dispatches from the Bunker

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.

Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

48 responses to “Paula Vennells and Mark Davies: Led by the (brown) nose”

  1. […] The culture and attitude Davies brought to bear on this scandal had a real world effect. Davies had already persuaded his CEO not to open an investigation into past prosecutions of Subpostmasters because it might cause bad PR, and by Dec 2014 Vennells had become a simpering cheerleader for […]

  2. forensic accountant avatar
    forensic accountant

    ~ PREMATURE SEND of immediately preceding Comment – please delete it and enter this. Thank you. ~

    “Hang together or hang separately” appears to have been the motto of this criminal gang for more than a decade.

    Roll on the prosecutions!

    When breaking the habits of a lifetime and telling the unvarnished truth, and all of it, and nothing save it, could be rewarded by a reduction of likely sentence from
    Life without the prospect of parole
    Twenty years,
    these creatures’ amnesia will be cured.


    Note that if the UfP* CoLP and CPS do not swiftly bring the gang to book, I will devote considerable resources in the City to ensure that Mr Bates gets a multimillion pound fighting fund for private prosecutions. I will work pro bono myself. I will do my utmost to ensure counsel of Beer’s calibre is procured and will work for a pittance or pro bono too.

    The immediate priority will be to get the Australian absconder extradited. There is no legal impediment to doing this once proceedings start; the offences for which there is an abundance of evidence she has committed are, unsurprisingly, also offences had they been committed under the jurisdiction of Australian Courts applying Australian law.

    1. If private prosecution is a feasible route, then I am sure that thousands of people in this country would be prepared to contribute to a fund, as well. Some of the contributions put forward on Nick’s website by computer experts, accountants and ex post office branch managers have added real insights. Is there any way that their expertise could be pooled?

      There was clearly a concerted attempt to close down Second Sight and to obstruct any truly objective investigation into Horizon. The Project Sparrow Sub-Committee was the chosen vehicle. It really is quite bizarre. In what other organisation would the Chairman, CEO and a senior representative of the shareholder (in this case the Government) sit on a lowly Sub-Committee? This was full scale command and control.

      It is so important for people’s trust in this country that those at the top in POL who were responsible are seen to pay for the damage that they caused. Many people, especially youngsters, are utterly disillusioned with the current state of affairs. Seeing true justice done might be a key step in restoring faith in the UK.

  3. Alan Cornforth avatar
    Alan Cornforth

    Ok my theory on this Horizon issue as a whole may sound outlandish but can’t be any worse than the excuses being given in the inquiry?

    Fujitsu has been regularly hacked by foreign agents determined to undermine the fabric of British society? They have kept it in house and not even revealing the true extent to the PO.

    I hear the laughs already, but think about what has gone before with interference in elections, brexit, etc. and from what we hear, gaining super user access was not difficult !

    Undermining the trust in a government and its core services is a classic disinformation technique? Empowering our own secret police (POL investigators) to go after innocent people on a false premise is another.

    I could well be wrong but has this possibility even been mentioned.

    We may or may not be worried that Ticketmaster databases are out there now but more serious stuff is not far away either!

    1. There really is no need for such a theory. If the software had been ordinary-ish large scale commercial software the same could still have happened, because of the layers and layers of so-called “management” between the software and its users. But in fact we know from whistleblowers that the software was given a technical quality rating of “crap”, so how would any “hacking” have made it worse?

      1. Alan Cornforth avatar
        Alan Cornforth

        Brian, If the objective of hackers was to make software worse then I would agree with you but that really isn’t why they do things. Financial gain, political interference, disrupting core services and turning people against each other are more common objectives depending on who is doing the hacking and, more importantly, who they are doing it for. I’m sure the cyber attacks on London’s hospitals yesterday wasn’t just to rate their software!

        1. Brian the establishment / HMG does (and has throughout this sorry scandal done) a fine job of undermining ‘British society’ without any input from anyone else.

  4. Roger Whitewick avatar
    Roger Whitewick

    As a long time supporter of the Refugee Council, I was concerned that MD’s time at the Post Office is missing from his biography on their website. It is a shame that such an important charity has given him a plumb job and associated themselves (and by extension its supporters) with him but allowing him to miss out significant but inconvenient information does not speak highly of a charity that suggests it is open and transparent. I made this point directly to the Refugee Council but the answer failed to address the elephant in the room. Perhaps Mark Davies is not as proud of himself as his appearance at the inquiry suggested.

  5. Three things are bugging me.
    First, the One Show email was a shocking example of Ms Vennells’s arrogance.. The excoriating comment delivered by the subpostmasters and others was well deserved. But how did it get sent? The most junior manager in Post Office HQ would know that any message to others within or outwith the Organisation would need to be re-read to check factual content, to consider how the recipient would view it, and to correct any spelling or grammatical mistakes. Then check once more before finally letting it go. I can well imagine the censure someone lower down the food chain would have received for sending an email like that.
    Second, the Inquiry has yet to establish where the phrase ” You are the only one, no one else is having these problems” has come from. Everyone I speak to wants to know the answer. I do not believe for one moment that it grew organically across the Business. I am sure it was scripted and there are managers who know full well where it originated. For subpostmasters, and other interested parties, I hope that information comes to light before the Inquiry concludes.
    Third, surely Paula Vennells must have wondered how much of the cash supposedly stolen by subpostmasters had been unearthed since Horizon was introduced. Interrogations conducted ,houses searched, bank accounts checked, expensive purchases [ new car’s, holidays etc ] scrutinised, yet no actual cash was found. Did she never ask? I would have thought that someone charged with returning the Business to profitability would be asking some very serious questions. Unless of course, she already knew they were phantom losses. Debt recovery is one thing but when no cash turned up after the audits I would have been asking the Investigators what on earth they were doing. Perhaps she was too busy selecting the hymns for next Sunday.

  6. As was revealed on the third morning of Ms Vennells’ evidence, the issue at the heart of this whole ghastly affair was the flotation of the Royal Mail in October 2013. And one of the most important periods in this scandal was the run-up to that. We should not forget that the freedom for the British Government to sell Royal Mail shares had been established as far back as 13 June 2011, when the Postal Services Act 2011 was granted royal assent. The Royal Mail and the Post Office were then separated on 31 March 2012, with the £10 billion Royal Mail pension scheme deficit being unceremoniously dumped on the taxpayer, without which the sale of shares in Royal Mail would have been a non-starter.

    Curiously, the apparently less-than-detail-conscious Ms Vennells actively intervened in mid-2013 to ensure that a paragraph in the draft Royal Mail share prospectus about the risks associated with the Horizon IT system was removed. She even boasted to the Chairman, Alice Perkins, that ‘I have earned my keep on this one’. The paragraph was authored by Les Owen, who had been a Non-Executive Director of Royal Mail Group since December 2010. Odd that a NED who started in late December 2010 was aware of problems with Horizon when Ms Vennells, who had joined the Post Office as Group Network Director back in 2007 maintains that she wasn’t. While she initially hedged, on being pressed by Edward Henry during the third morning of her evidence she was forced to admit that that the revelations about possible prosecution failings during the time that Royal Mail oversaw the Post Office would have been devastating to the Royal Mail flotation, which had already effectively cost the taxpayer £10 billion.

    All of which takes us to the curious events of the evening of 15 July 2013 when Susan Crichton has said, under oath, that she informed Ms Vennells that Gareth Jenkins’ new status as an “unsafe witness” would result in many successful claims arising from past wrongful convictions. Vennells for her part says she cannot recall the conversation. How on earth is that credible? At the Post Office Board Meeting the next day Susan Crichton had been due to update the Board on what was happening on the Second Sight report and the Cartwright King Sift, but at the last-minute Alice Perkins decided that Ms Vennells should take over Susan Crichton’s slot and it was instead presented by Ms Vennells while Susan Crichton was left sitting outside on a chair. One wonders what factor persuaded Alice Perkins’ sudden volte-face on Susan Crichton’s participation in the Board Meeting? Had someone made her aware of the Gareth Jenkins issue? And who might that have been? Perkins was clearly extremely worried about Crichton being quizzed by members of the Board and going off-piste. Vennells earned her keep again and, according to the minutes, stated that the Second Sight report, while challenging, ‘had highlighted some positive things as well as improvement opportunities’.

    The Paula Vennells that emerged from her three days of testimony, despite her best efforts, was a highly focused, extremely controlling and manipulative character. She knew exactly what she was doing. She was only ever motivated by her own salary and bonuses. What kind of human being, on hearing that a sub postmaster has committed suicide, immediately starts spreading rumours about previous mental health issues and family problems? Or specifies the answer she is looking for in response to a question? Or fails to ensure that defendants’ lawyers and the Criminal Cases Review Commission are informed about unsafe evidence given on behalf of an organisation of which she is CEO? Or tries to pin the blame for failures which were her ultimate responsibility on named employees who were junior to her?

    Paula Vennells is emblematic of everything that has gone wrong with this country. Utterly venal and self-serving.

    1. A psychopath
      So many in top jobs

  7. Three quarks for Muster Mark!
    Sure he hasn’t got much of a bark
    And sure any he has it’s all beside the mark.

    Although Muster Mark and Vestibule Vennells are strangely entangled in deceit, the basic recipe for the cover up is three of a kind.

    Mark, Paula and Angela Van Den Bogerd are the three who spin in the same direction. You can never know their true position without probability theory. The proof that God does play dice.

    The lawyers were the gluons that enabled POL and their stakeholder to maintain a spatial proximity to the truth, ethics and justice. The personification of the legal dark arts.

    You see the same up, down and strange behaviour in the entwined relationship between those lawyers, post office senior management and the civil service. An unholy trinity worthy of Beelzebub, Lucifer, and Astaroth. Genesis of a scandal.

    How could the Rev Paula Vennells find herself in this unholy trinity? Why did she place her faith in the infallibility of a computer system and worship at the temple of Oracle, Fujitsu and Windows NT?

    Not to mention mammon, politics and human stupidity that begat the POL scandal.

    Like quantum theory the inquiry will come down to probability and superposition.

    Does anyone seriously believe that so many highly paid, educated, experienced and intelligent people didn’t know what was going on?

    What are the chances?

    No uncertainty in that calculation.


  8. I would suggest that the fact that Mark Davies thinks PV acted with care and integrity says more about him than her.

  9. Every time PV suggested deeper research or review, she was talked out of it. She was too weak to persist.

    In one instance she instructed her subordinates to do a deep dive review of a case. Then we see an email from Houghton telling everyone to stop. I’d like to see him explain that but I don’t think he has been called to testify.

  10. What a pair!
    The thing with telling porkies is that you have to to remember which one you told and to whom. It gets very complicated otherwise…especially when you have no idea of the wealth of information the ‘other side’ has because you haven’t bothered to read it all. Hoist by their own petards and deservedly so.

    There’s an interesting piece in The Law Gazette today about Ms Chrichton having to sit on the naughty chair. I’m not sure if links are allowed here but it should be easy enough to find. It talks about how PV and Mr Davies got their heads together about Susan C putting her lawyerly ethics above the needs of business and how they needed to ensure the [delicate] Board members weren’t presented with the full, disgraceful picture…yeah! I know! How dare she?! Shocking behaviour! Anyway, they say in the piece that she resigned soon after, but is worded in such a way that it seems she may have been given a choice E.g. ‘Resign or we’ll sack you’. It makes her testimony at the Inquiry seem rather strange – was she given some kind of pay-off dependent NDA? I think we should be told! (With thanks to Private Eye 😊)
    Curiouser and curioser…

  11. P Vennells never answered a question in a straightforward manner. She’s adept at obfuscation. She’s truly a match for Jarnail Singh.

    1. agree…the pair of them seem very adept at mangling the English language. In doing so changing the sense of a sequence of words to come up with a sentence meaning the exact opposite of that which the rest of us (dullards) thought it meant. As JB says in the text above “which words help to read it in a different way”….no coherent answer!

  12. “I loved the Post Office. I worked so hard, gave so much ….” when one considers she took on a £50k / year side job at Morrisons in 2016, this statement means even less than it did on face value.

    A reverend, lying under oath. If I believed in God she would be going to hell. at least she does!

  13. I like the way you show PV and MD sitting together in that image. There should have been a few multiple witness testimonies to see how the partners in crime behave and who would crack first

  14. “Let me know you’re ok” to someone battling blood cancer is probably one of PV’s lesser crimes …
    Ditto ‘that’s so kind’ from the person battling it – who’s now, terrifyingly, at the Refugee Council.

  15. One doesn’t often hear (the wonderful) Mr. Beer use informal language, but I just loved the contemptuous way in which he referred to Mr. Davies as “the PR guy”.

    1. EileennBrewis avatar

      Mr Beer always knows exactly what he’s doing. I loved that bit, too.

  16. These executive administrators who were employed to support and enable the SPM network, clearly had more concern for their careers and earnings than the purpose for which they were employed. They are false in their function & life and have delivered incalculable suffering and damage to the people and business they were paid to facilitate. The moral for me is at the very first opportunity/question/issue ensure you “DO THE RIGHT THING” and if you are honest with yourself you know what that thing is.

  17. She was shafted by everyone who worked for her. She should have also named Angela vdB. Being naive and too trusting she played into their hands. How can you take the steer from a PR guy? Perhaps she was not really welcomed or privately disliked in the PO. Too sanctimonious and nice?

    Then Fujistso well and truly shafted PO seeing PO as rich pickings.

    1. Sorry to disagree, but she absolutely wasn’t! The superb Oscar-worthy performance was very carefully stage-managed, even to the point of her own barrister NOT asking questions when given the opportunity to do so.
      Whatever she may be, she’s not an idiot. Nobody gets to her level without being absolutely at the top of their game. The revelations re: her disgraceful comments about the sad death of Mr Martin show exactly where her loyalties lay. The callousness exhibited when writing about the tv piece ‘boring’ and criticising Jo Hamilton was disgusting. Save your sympathy/empathy for those who deserve it, Rev. Vennells certainly doesn’t.

  18. Marie and Murray Antoinette might as well have suggested that the unlawfully prosecuted SPMs eat cake.

  19. I will not be happy until those responsible for the Post Office scandal are imprisoned.

    1. forensic accountant avatar
      forensic accountant

      Dr Lee

      Mere imprisonment for life accompanied by bankruptcy appears woefully inadequate, given the monstrosity of their crimes.

  20. Paula Vennells may well be a dyed in the wool villain but she is being treated very badly by the inquiry/show trial.

    1) She is being cross-examined by lawyers for the postmasters but she doesn’t seem to have her own lawyer to protect her

    2) The hostile people in the room are being given a lot of latitude to show what they think of her. Might have been fairer to have let her give evidence in private and transmitted to the public on screem.

    There is a history of inquiries where the chairman fails to be impartial, – Macpherson, Hillsborough inquests, possibly Covid. It will be a pity if this one falls down the same hole.

    1. Alan Cornforth avatar
      Alan Cornforth

      This is not true Gary, her lawyer was there and was even given the chance to question her at the end if she wanted to do any rebuttal/rehabiliting of her client- she didn’t take up the opportunity or was told not to by PV. At the start she was given the normal directives of declining questions that may lead to self-incrimination and she stated that she would answer every question asked to her. When the hostility to her became a bit more than laughing, Sir Wyn interjected very quickly.

    2. She had legal representatives with her at the Inquiry and confirmed as much when she was given the warning re self-incrimination. Her lawyer was given the opportunity to ask questions last thing on Friday. She declined to take up the offer

      1. A team from mischcon and her very own KC. In the room and clearly extensive coaching. It’s not a show trial; nobody gets to leap up and object!

    3. I don’t think this is quite right. Paula is represented by Mishcon de Reya who are expensive London solicitors and Sir Wyn was at some pains to explain at the beginning of day 3 that she also had her own barrister, who could have asked questions after all the other barristers had put their points. If that option had been taken up, Paula might have been able to put a different spin on things that had already been discussed or asked about new topics but in the end her own barrister decided not to ask her anything. I leave you to draw your own conclusions…

    4. Seriously Gary?
      She told us ( complained?) that she had spent the last year full time preparing for this hearing. You should watch it all again.She blamed others , deflected or obfuscated every direct question. She took the “big bucks” for being the person where the “buck stops”!

    5. forensic accountant avatar
      forensic accountant

      @ Gary J.


  21. Great succinct but informative review of hours of testimony.

  22. Jose Noya Noya avatar
    Jose Noya Noya

    Mr Wallis, Thank goodness that journalists like you are prepared to spend so much of your time in search it the truth. I have followed the PO Inquiry every day for many weeks on the Inquiry You Tube Channel. I am glad so much of the cover up has come to light (at last) and I know your investigations and reporting have contributed to uncovering the cruel and criminal activities of so many senior people who even now try to find feeble excuses to protect themselves.

    Thank you again

  23. Gillian Meehan avatar
    Gillian Meehan

    On day 3 PV said that she loved the Post Office and it tweaked her emotions as she said it. I think that this is the essence of the whole cover-up. She really did love the Post Office, there is no doubt about it, it’s obvious. But the thing is, she didn’t love the people that worked for the Post Office and that’s where it all went wrong.

    1. Alan Cornforth avatar
      Alan Cornforth

      I think she had reached the exalted position of CEO and she loved the power of the job much more than the PO itself. During her spare time she preached from the pulpit, at work she preached the gospel according to PV and rarely did morals of the two careers ever synchronise. She was desperate to impress somebody but who it was, God only knows!? 😉

    2. Absolutely 💯
      “I loved the Post Office” said with crocodile tears.
      This single statement by her lays bare all the obfuscation and lies that Vennells told over 3 days.

      Penny for your thinking Paula?
      Perhaps, “….and the convicted SPMs be damned!”

    3. Perhaps time will show that the thing she loved was an idea of the Post Office and her role in it. An idea she had built up and invested in, emotionally. Image and reputation management played a huge part in this scandal, at a corporate and an individual level. A CEO driven by those imperatives is less likely to engage with technically complex issues.

  24. An excellent assessment Nick…..she was caught out on a number of fronts to expose the person she really is….horrific from a SPM point of view..
    Davies just did his job on behalf of Alice Perkins to perpetuate the corruption..

  25. Side issue: Jason Beer is so goddamn sexy…

  26. Richard Laidlaw avatar
    Richard Laidlaw

    well done Nick, “back in the day” I lived in West Byfleet.
    You deserve much credit for your tireless investigative work, with others, John Swiney’s Panorama gig
    oh the P.O. “pop pop” was also incisive !!

  27. Three days of intense questioning….the line of ignorance firmly and, dare I say it robustly held. This appears to be her one and only talent…the ability to convince herself of an obvious lie….and remain unwavering in the face of a tsunami of evidence to the contrary. The anger and distain in Mr Henry’s voice was the only true emotion displayed displayed during Fridays questioning. He, like us all, just could not believe that this pygmy of an individual could stick to her ludicrous story even when facing her so so wronged victims. She must face the law now

  28. Diane Stephenson avatar
    Diane Stephenson

    I think your site is great and look forward to your blogs, I love the tone, very interesting, informative and witty. Thank you for all you’re doing. The sheer arrogance of these people is breathtaking and they are a disgrace. I am avidly following the Inquiry and we’ll see what the rest of the specimens to come have to say!

  29. Why would such decisions fall to non-execs to take? Could it be because this centralised power in the hands of PV and (the so far shadowy) AP?

    The enquiry is letting itself be restricted by the documentation. For instance, I would be wondering
    – What proportion of PV’s time was spent on Horizon matters?
    – What was the role of the senior committee of executives (Exco?)?
    – What did PV’s support staff actually do?
    – What did she do in her previous PO role? (She must have picked up something.)

    1. AP up for 2 days next week. Alwen and PV came before her for a reason… Inquiry witnesses ascen in culpability to ‘roll up’ on eachother and these 2 certainly did that.

Leave a Reply

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