In full: Paula Vennells gives evidence for third day at Post Office inquiry

Disgraced ex-Post Office boss Paula Vennells gives evidence for the third time to the public inquiry today.
The former chief executive led the company from 2012 to 2019 but she has faced heavy scrutiny for her role during the Horizon scandal and was formally stripped of her CBE by the King earlier this year.
The Telegraph revealed how the Post Office executive joked about drinking champagne in late December 2018 after finding out she would receive the honour.
More than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongfully prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 due to faulty Horizon software incorrectly recording shortfalls on their accounts.
Read more here: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024...
#postoffice #inquiry #livestream
Subscribe to The Telegraph with our special offer. Start your free trial now:
www.telegraph.co.uk/customer/...
Get the latest headlines: www.telegraph.co.uk/
Telegraph.co.uk and / telegraphtv are websites of The Telegraph, the UK's best-selling quality daily newspaper providing news and analysis on UK and world events, business, sport, lifestyle and culture.

[@mak7587]

When I get my tax done by my accountant, I sign a document stating that I take responsibility for any errors that may occur and accept any prosecution from the taxation department. And I’m just an ordinary citizen. This woman has a character flaw of never taking any responsibility for anything in her life. She sweeps her mess under the rug.

[@romancatholicword528]

Absolutely right

[@robinblick9375]

It would an interesting exercise to count the number of times that in response to a question, she uses the phrases 'I don't remember' and 'I don't recall, or their equivalents. I suspect it will be over a hundred.

[@cynthiasimpson2745]

How much was she paid to destroy lives?

[@johntomlinson6849]

£700,000 per year plus bonuses

[@robinblick9375]

Not, 'I was not', but 'I don't believe I was involved in any of those conversations'. The usual response, a reply that leaves clouds of doubt obscuring what she did or did not do or know.

[@rogerbarton1790]

Jo Hamilton is loving every minute of this.

[@robinblick9375]

People who master two foreign languages, especially one as difficult as Russian, do not have memory problems.

[@robinblick9375]

I am aged 87, but I can clearly remember events from my early childhood. If we are to believe her repeated disclaimers, a huge chunk of her past life is a total blank.

[@robinblick9375]

She frequently says 'I imagined' or 'I imagine' when she should say 'I knew' or 'I know'. The language and constructions she uses are designed to keep herself one or more stages away from responsilbity. She should have challenged on this.

[@robinblick9375]

Manuel of Fawlty Towers.. 'I know nothing'. But he was a humble waiter. She was the boss of one the largest organisations in the UK and indeed the world.

[@robinblick9375]

Putting a lid on a scandal of this magnitude, which is what she explicitly and repeatedly advocated, does not require technical expertise, though it does require a certain moral standpoint, one which is inconsistent with what are said to be her Christian beliefs.

[@mickpelling-jz3bd]

Was she a weak person, easily manipulated by those she was supposed to manage? Or more likely complicit in everything, and now living in denial?

[@alexrouten6381]

This questioner is just making statements. This is NOT a criminal trial, this is an enquiry into what went wrong, so ask questions to examine what went wrong

[@romancatholicword528]

I’m sorry I have a law degree and I am now studying my layers in law, I have been trained to present legal arguments and also also to cross examine witnesses. They are not making statements, the job barrister or solicitor is to put the case forward by asking questions. This happens in both criminal and civil law, and public law, the difference is that in criminal cases the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, in civil cases of public law cases it is in the balm e probability. A public enquiry is different in terms of proving a case that 1 the witnesses are not going to prison, 2. To establish the facts 3. To rule on the evidence and report its findings with recommendations as well as other things. But in order to establish the facts, lawyers will have to ask the witnesses questions and to ask them with closed questions all be it some open ended questions.