Post Office Scandal - shifty Tim Parker

[@covvy]

Your conclusion hits the point - he was at all costs trying to preserve his reputation for competence. His arrogance and evasion was truly astounding throughout.

[@allanmac6562]

Totally agree

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks, great to hear you hit the same conclusion. Arrogance and evasion do sum things up very nicely. p

[@vrindersinghrandhawa6343]

like a nhs kiddie fiddling ceo from southampton, brand and cock before kids and people. alas if only he was on a boat in the med

[@lululand1653]

Thank you Paul, this is so exhausting and Tim most certainly is a real piece of work. I could only watch him live for a short period and truly appreciate your comprehensive analysis. I hope you've had a good cleanse and are now restored after spending time with the prince of darkness. What an odious and reprehensible person and the most horrifying fact is that although he has been brought into the light there are thousands more in every corporation all over the planet who destroy many lives every day .

[@LowreyContractorsUK]

Yes definitely ,,,,,self serving, gravy train riders. The place where jobs for one of the boys is alive and well. As a self made successful businessman man. To watch this piece of crap talk makes me want to vomit

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks, yes it was tough watching his evidence to the inquiry. Yep, I felt I should take a shower after spending time watching his performance at the inquiry!

[@markgoscinski3509]

Another brilliant analysis of the incompetent senior people at POL , please please keep up your outstanding work in producing these highly informative videos , and in turn educating people like myself . I am in your debt for your time .

[@andyniblock43]

Not incompetent when it came to filling their pockets.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you so much for your encouragement Mark. I am also in your debt for the time you give me when you watch my videos and for taking the time to post your lovely feedback :)

[@DerrickJenkins-s6c]

Another brilliant video, Paul. The odious Tim Parker was a fitting subject for rigorous analysis and you summed him up memorably. I listened to him giving his testimony live and even though I wasn't in the same room, he made my skin crawl. Wholly unapologetic for his laziness, incompetence, and lack of insight, he was a brazen egotist, lacking any compassion for the people he betrayed with his negligence. Your analysis near the end of Parker's total lack of awareness of scale (shown by the closeup of his fingers almost touching as he mentioned one victim's legal travails) jolted me to my core. You described his chilling cold-heartedness wonderfully well.Bless you for your great achievements in producing these videos to highlight this gross miscarriage of justice. Keep at it when you can in enabling justice to be provided for the innocent victims of this scandal.

[@helenheenan3447]

"Hindsight isn't the issue. It was your lack of insight, and lack of oversight." Sums up much of the evidence we have heard from so many in this enquiry. Excellent video, thank you.

[@ninjalokust]

What came across the most to me was arrogance. He didn't listen to the second site people because swift was going to produce a report having listened to them and investigated himself. He then didn't release the report because he was told by a lawyer he didn't have to. He then didn't read the report and act on it. He then later takes credit for the results of the report being enacted as a result of the class action lawsuit because he was "involved" in the report happening at all. The problem is obvious, he wasn't really putting in any time or effort into actually reforming the post office, he was putting in a minimum of effort and time to make it look like he was trying to reform the post office while also spending time trying to prevent the post office being held account for past wrongs. Then taking credit for the post office being reformed as a result of all his efforts failing. When it comes to actually giving information that would allow us to judge what happened in context at the time his memory fails, and then he turns around and claims that we can't judge with hindsight because we know things he didn't know, as he didn't listen to second sight and didn't read the swift report. Essentially hes trying to contort the past, accusing us of wrongdoing for judging him based on having learned the depth of the scandal and expecting him to have known when he repeatedly tells us he didn't know anything because there wasn't enough time in his busy schedule to actually listen to people he had meetings with, or read reports from investigations that he commissioned and guided. He complains in hindsight, that he didn't have enough time to fully understand the scandal, but at the time asked to spend less time working in the company. TWO DAYS a month is what he wanted to be spending on the company, yet now wants to say he didn't have enough time. That contradiction helps him to argue that he isn't responsible for decisions he made, or didn't make, because he can as you said remove context and or shift time to avoid answering why he acted the way he acted. Tim very clearly wants to paint us as being wrong for accusing him of malfeasance or laziness. That we can't judge him properly because we weren't there in the room listening to what people were saying in his meetings or what decisions he was saying. The fact we can't know those things because he doesn't remember is also our fault, not his.

[@LowreyContractorsUK]

👍👍👍👍

[@PaulDuckett]

This is a great post. Thanks so much for putting in the time and thought and sharing this with us all. Very much appreciated. p

[@lynnedawson2935]

Utterly brilliant. I have watched almost every person give evidence in the official inquiry. Jason Beer is, like you, one of my heroes in this dreadful debacle. Thank you so much for sharing your insight and giving us your time. Lynne

[@PaulDuckett]

That is such lovely feedback. I am no way near the level of Jason Beer, so I am very flattered by that comparison. Good to know these videos make sense to you given you are committed to being a public witness to the scandal being fully exposed at the inquiry. We need more folk like you in the world.

[@lynnedawson2935]

@@PaulDuckett whilst Jason Beer is from a different profession, your videos are just as important, but in a different way. Your forensic analysis, analogous to Jason Beer’s forensic approach, is to be applauded. Lynne

[@apollomemories7399]

Perhaps one of the most peculiar people that I have ever listened to or seen for that matter. I would have had a severe problem with him on any level, be it at work or in social circumstances. Ghastly individual.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your post. Yes, he was peculiar. let's hope there are not too many folk who behave like he does in the world :) p

[@TheHarryMann]

.. but there are think, and so many at board level (living the oh so stressful life of overpaid and overpensiobed).

[@BsktImp]

If nothing else, the inquiry has provided a rare opportunity to observe the appalling behaviour exhibited by senior executives and civil servants when confronted by the audacity of questioning from those they consider beneath them. They are simply unaccustomed to such challenges. The palpable contempt they harbour seeps from every orifice and pore. 01:04:12 Spot on! Precisely what I said when trying to take in the verbiage that spewed from his mouth in lieu of an apology. He's a perfect example of someone who sees only figures in reports and spreadsheets - even robots are probably too sentient for his liking.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely said. Yes, it was contempt, I think, that sat behind his testimony. You capture that really well.

[@vrindersinghrandhawa6343]

like a nhs kiddie fiddling ceo from southampton, brand and cock before kids and people. alas if only he was on a boat in the med

[@katerobinson7635]

Keep up 5he good work! No videos are too long ! The content is superb. Can't wait for more post office stuff. Thank you.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Kate. I really appreciate your lovely and encouraging feedback. p :)

[@Tonyd5996]

Hi Dr. Duckett. Thank you very much for another video. I must say that your analyses of the various scoundrels that have appeared at the enquiry have been very revealing and helpful. You are an extremely gifted communicator and observer and I very much appreciate your devotion of time and work to these videos. All the best.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Tony, that is such lovely and encouraging feedback. I really appreciate you taking the time to post it. It helps motivate me to carry on with the channel. p

[@evanofelipe]

Thank you Paul, you make some very insightful comments here regarding Parker’s arrogant testimony to the Enquiry. He clearly becomes increasingly uncomfortable with ‘not being in control of the narrative’ that demonstrates he considers himself as being above the KC’s and their line of questioning. His artificially relaxed posture and demeanour are deliberate signs of his misplaced belief in himself. In short an insufferable bore, with selective memory and an active participant in the biggest miscarriage of Justice in British Criminal history, resulting in hundreds of decent ordinary people being wrongly convicted. His absence of contrition is breath taking.

[@schoderfactory]

Thank you so much! I watched the original testimony, and I find your analysis not only very impressive but also extremely fair and spot on.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for your lovely feedback. I really appreciate it. :) p

[@Paul-67]

Well done Paul, here in the uk we appreciate your efforts to analyse and make clear the importance of this scandal. I wish you the best. Paul.

[@PaulDuckett]

That's lovely to hear, thanks so much Paul (you) for that postive encouragement paul

[@ShakesSphere]

Oh, you're back with it!!! 😊 ❤ Delighted to see you again! Hmm... very interesting.....

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you! 😃

[@ataxpayer723]

“ I didn’t do anything immediately”. This seems to sum up his entire career at the PO.

[@yvonneatkinson4977]

Enjoy your insights and analysis. Please keep creating your content on the Horizon scandal. I really enjoy watching them - no matter how long!

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your lovely encouragement Yvvonne. I will keep pluggin away :) p

[@chrisgilbert7877]

please keep up this work., as an Australian, I am very pleased you have graced our shores and may you be happy here, as an It security person I am very grateful for your advice, as a human I am grateful for you compassion and empathy. More people need to see this content. Although the views are not huge your effect is a lot more than and pebble in a pond,

[@PaulDuckett]

That's so lovely to hear. Thank you so much. It's really encouraged me to keep going. And nice to know that there are folk like you here in Australia :)

[@KathyBabb]

Your keen insight at 56 minutes about the “tiny” gesture is eye opening. The SPM’s didn’t really matter in his day to day work - they and their problems were minuscule in his mind.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Kathy, yep, I agree I think SPMs didn't matter to him at the time, and maybe not even now.

[@chrissailing8856]

Well done Paul, a brilliant analysis - particularly Tim Parker’s atrocious approach to not apologising, his playing with himself and his repeated abstraction of the evidence and his relation to it. I disagree on a lack of insight. He would have been crystal clues about the levers he and the POL executive needed to pull to take costs out and get Ms Vennels lagging transformation delivered. Also. He was lying about not remembering the meeting with Jonathan Swift and the Accountants. You do not forget a stand-up row with the people sent by an MP and Parliamentary Committee leaders.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your lovely feedback. I really appreciate it. Yes, I think you are absolutely right to challenge my assertion he lacked insight. Perhaps more the case that he had something other than the welfare of his SPMs in his sights! :) p

[@chrissailing8856]

@@PaulDuckett Well - he is has a track record as a Hatchet man and was clearly hired to drive out costs (with the consent of the U.K. Government). But what I don’t get is why he didn’t look deeper into Alice Perkins activities and correct them? Unless he was complicit &/or flaky?

[@Smax-p2g]

Alongside all the other things about this man that made my skin crawl, it was his responses to the woman lawyer that alarmed me the most. It's worth comparing his responses to Sir Wyn (respectful, with a sense that he considered them to be equals) to his responses to the woman lawyer at the end. His demeanour changed quite dramatically to one of irritation, dismissiveness, almost contempt. I think Paul is charitable when describing his packing up while she was speaking as a little rude. It was downright insulting to her - he is telling her that she isn't worth his time, and that he has no respect for her at all. Thanks so much for this thoughtful and measured analysis, Dr Paul. I've been enjoying your analysis of the inquiry immensely.

[@WendyUrquhart-y6b]

Thank you. Most enlightening. The post office "elite" should be ashamed, not defensive as they appear to be.

[@shonamcneil-watson4958]

What an analysis. Keen for these on other witnesses and aspects of the scandal. I watched a lot of the coverage, and it's so interesting hearing your thoughts on it. Please keep going!

[@shonamcneil-watson4958]

Also, when watching, the arrogance came through, but the parts of narrative framing I realised I had recognised, but couldn't articulate. So interesting to hear it dissected, and also the shifts in his testimony. The non-chronological approach added to the message

[@shonamcneil-watson4958]

pps I love a Beer side-eye. He is the master.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Shona. With encouragement from you like that, I certainly will keep going :) p

[@marilynstolberg5534]

I appreciate your clarity of thought and examination of people's words and its contradiction of their intent.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Marilyn. That's lovely encouragement and I really appricate it. p

[@dglady5168]

Yay! Great to "see" you again Dr Paul! Thanks ever so for Mr Parker's unpacking as once more you've provided the viewer with a level of analysis which provides a fresh perspective - the last 5 mins of evaluation is pure gold! And no it wasn't too long a video; I, for one, appreciate the work entailed in bringing such valuable insight into the public domain. Thank you & look after yourself!

[@PaulDuckett]

And, great to hear from you again :) Thanks so much for you steadfast encouragement. I really appreciate it :) p

[@malcolmbrunt4139]

Not too long at all. Insightful and a well constructed presentation. And your conclusions are spot on. I appreciate your videos and look forward to the next.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Malcolm, p

[@fionajane009]

Not too long at all! Really wonderful insights and helped me articulate the massive allergic reaction I had to watching Tim Parker’s performance. Thank you! And yes please to continue posting regarding the Post office.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for your lovely feedback Fiona, p

[@ShakesSphere]

Your video wasn't too long, the subject of Tim Parker is quite an interesting one, and your thoughtful perceptions, are, likewise. I had not known of his reputation in past corporations, either, so indeed, his experience with 'scale' and statistics, does round out a deeper understanding of this complex individual. I truly don't sense an innate meanness within him, but rather an underdeveloped emotional sensability perhaps?? I also found it revealing, that on the topic of apologies, he started out the door with the sentence about "toying" with the idea of making an apology. He's just wired that way, I think? A statician, a numbers guy, but also, ..his deep fear of not being understood as genuine, belies younger days, when he was misunderstood. So..if so, then the deep detachment is a long evolved protection mechanism. Your post sheds a great light on the vexing curiosities we were left with, after his testimony! Keep up the great work though, for these lessons on personalities can be helpful in the future, for all of us out here, in addition to understanding the PO. !! Yes, more posts would be great, but I hope you are well, and have the time too! Thank you ❤

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your lovely feedback. Yep, I sensed that meanness. I think that's sadly the trait that has been valued in the corporate world for too long ... though there are signs this migth be changing :) p

[@martinliddament-rd5tx]

Very good analysis. Your concluding remarks are particularly insightful.

[@KeithBarbour-y9v]

Brilliant assessment

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Keith, that is lovely of you to say that. p

[@jilladams3807]

Brilliant. I was totally engrossed. Thank you.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you so much Jill. That is lovely of you to say that. p

[@jeanwillis2646]

Another great analysis thank so much, you’re fair and even handed in your observations. You make me think about TPs evidence in a completely different and more accurate view point please do continue Paul but only in your own time I’m happy to wait until I get my next Paul Duckett KZbin notification 😊 Every best wish from St Albans (UK)

[@rosemarywellman577]

Yes, it was long but worth listening to every second. Thank you.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you so much Rosemary. :)

[@mordanlike]

I really enjoyed your analysis, and I very much appreciated the format you used. It was not too long and I would love to see more of these. I only stumbled onto your channel due to the subject matter but I'll happily stick around for a little while to see what else you present. Thank you.

[@robsengahay5614]

This retrospective was quite interesting because I watched it at the time and remember feeling it was cringeworthy but I had forgotten why, so thank you. Incidentally my brother in law and sister in law are friends with Tim and I met him once about 15 years ago at a social gathering. I recall him holding court in a group. He is a very self assured and imposing individual and an easy person to recall even on a single casual acquaintance. I don’t recall speaking with him myself but I did hear him speaking. He does come across here as someone without empathy and particularly so for people he considers are beneath him. I’m sorry to say that my sister in law is similar in this regard so I can see why she holds him in high esteem. We also live in Queensland now so we haven’t actually spoken with them since this enquiry performance.

[@BoadiceanRevenge]

A narrow escape dear! 👍🙏⚖️🙏

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Rob. Wow, it's a small world - you being in Queensland and your close shave with Tim!

[@BarbaraAlldred-hc6et]

Thank you for your videos from which I have learned so much. Please keep on with the Post Office Inquiry videos.

[@PaulDuckett]

Hi Barbara, that's lovely of you to say that. Yes, I will keep going with these PO videos :)

[@artoflament]

Yet again Paul has brought excellent and insightful analysis. Thank you Paul

[@ConcordeForever]

Narcissists don't like to be confronted.

[@allanmac6562]

I’d be really interested in your analysis of the general competence of Jason Beer and his team. I for one have been continually impressed and find it incredible none of them have really lost their rag……

[@PaulDuckett]

Hi Allan, That's an excellent suggestion. I will definitely put that on my todo list. In fact, I was thinking of making this my next video. p

[@neilseddon1224]

Absolutely fantastic content and i was left wanting more thank you

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Neil. Feedback like your keep me going :) p

[@David-oe3vo]

Excellent production Paul. Really enjoyed every minute of it.

[@davidmosey687]

Not too long at all. Another first-rate (and enraging) analysis. Thank you so much.

[@PaulDuckett]

That's lovely feedback. Thank you David.

[@MelanieRuck-dq5uo]

Sorry, I have taken over a month to get around to watching this (yet again) superb analysis of another aspect of the Post Office Inquiry. Yet another thoughtful dissection of the evidence of a key witness done with Dr Duckett's usual calm, intelligent manner. Thank you once more.

[@leftreb68]

Not too long, very well analysed and great food for thought

[@PaulDuckett]

That's lovely feedback. Thank you.

[@batkinssmart4273]

Thank you for your fascinating insights into the evidence given by this unusual man. There is one aspect, though, which I think you may have missed - or perhaps you were too polite to comment on it. I listened to his evidence in full at the time of the inquiry, and I saw his peculiarities of style as deliberate. - As you say, he puts his hands down his pants when people are talking to him. - He favours what you politely refer to as "paralinguistic" sounds, and what I would refer to as "grunts" when someone else is talking. - When addressed by a woman, he fiddles with whatever is within reach (packing up ready to leave), and makes it clear that he knows she isn't worth listening to. This man was employed to chair a large organisation run mainly by females. And while you may see his behavioural oddities as trying to show he is relaxed, they could actually come across to a woman as extremely disconcerting. Frankly, when your boss sits you down in a room, plays with toys whenever you speak, puts his hands down his trousers, and grunts frequently - it's disconcerting, distracting, worrying, and your first instinct is this: Is there any point trying to speak to this person, or should I just run for the door? I'm obviously not suggesting he's doing this deliberately, but I don't think you should underestimate the effect this pattern of behaviour has on the women who have the misfortune to have a boss like this. It makes it hard to concentrate on doing your job, or keep your train of thought - let alone trying to have a serious conversation or make a presentation.

[@Smax-p2g]

Well said!

[@PaulDuckett]

This is a brilliant point and I did miss it. Yes, this has a very gendered component and that seemed to become very clear when he was being questioned by Ms Patrick. Thank you for making this point, it's a really important one to share.

[@shinywarm6906]

The string of completely unrelated organisations Parker has headed, his serial willingness to axe thousands of jobs, his accepting the deputy mayorship of London under Boris Johnson...together suggest a ready willingness and ability to avoid emotional engagement. His non-apology sounded like an attempt to reconcile himself to this inclination

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely summed up. Thanks for posting :)

[@andrewobrien6671]

There is also a matter of self entitlement with Parker. Twice when Mr Beer asked for a break of Sir Wyn and thanked Sir Wyn by saying "Thankyou Sir", Parker responded with "you're welcome". So perhaps he thought he was the only sir in the room, didn't understand the working format of the inquiry, or hadn't bothered to find out how things work.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Andrew. That's such a good spot. I completely missed that. How hilarious / embarrassing! p

[@ianlove3]

Great vlog. I love how you see things I miss, but I'm old.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much. Hey, you're not old ... you're wise :) p

[@lesleycollis7520]

He knew exactly what was going on however he didn't give a poop as he considered himself above the riff raff and beyond reach There are many persons like him but it does catch up with them because once someone sees who and what they are they then become the prey

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Lesley. Yep, 'he didn't give a poop' captures things nicely :)

[@bleakrevel]

More people need to see, your excellent work Paul.

[@PaulDuckett]

That's lovely feedback. Thank you :)

[@corringhamdepot4434]

When he arrived, Tim Parker displayed the typical arrogance of somebody who believes that they should always be deferred to as the smartest person in the room. Becoming increasingly annoyed that he is actually being exposed by somebody who is as smart, or even smarter than he is in this particular context. Then at the end, Tim allows his annoyance to clearly show. When he thinks he is being questioned by people he considers to be of a lower status.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for this. I think you are right - there was a snobbish quality to the way he engaged different to Beer compared to, for example, Ms Patrick. Nicely spotted.

[@darrenburns16]

Fantastic video, thanks very much for the detail, insight and effort you put into these videos, in your own time and for Gratas. Love how you point out things that I would never notice, that makes certain things make sense

[@PaulDuckett]

That's such lovely feedback. Thank you so much Darren. p

[@davidmills3569]

Reference Shifty Tim. Yes it was a long video however, I listened to every word carefully and do not consider a second wasted. As usual, erudite, accurate and very informative. Thank once more. As an aside, I will shortly be 78 and will perform 78 press ups to celebrate. To me, your videos are the mental equivalent of those press ups, keeping my mind exercised as well as my body. David Mills

[@BoadiceanRevenge]

One thing very noticeable throughout the Inquiry was the lack of humility from most of the witnesses. 😔

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely put. Thank you. p

[@deanwakley8357]

Thanks Dr Paul, had to set some time aside but though long and painful at times your breakdown provides an understanding of the arrogance/ignorance of the corporate narcissist, unfortunately we all have one at the top of our respective food chain🥴, but oh so sweet when you resign as I did this week😂

[@PaulDuckett]

Hi Dean, sad to hear that the only peace you have got is through resigning. But, sounds like it was a bad place and that you're now out of it. Well done for surviving it. Its sad who so many terrible actors end up running organisations. p

[@DerekB99]

I've been tracking this mega- fiasco from here in Canada, and the dishonesty, laziness, complacence, incompetence and ignorance of people like Parker and others beggars belief.

[@Joan-maryJoan-Mary]

Please keep on with your analysis irrespective of how long and how late! It’s very valuable and fascinating

[@sallymartinart9267]

This was totally engrossing, not too long at all. Thank you for sharing your insights and analysis, it helped me so much to navigate this appalling performance. Thank you so much

[@clareharding6114]

Absolutely love the insight and analysis of this and always look forward to a new video. Please keep them coming as it’s really important that as much information as possible is shared for public debate. I do watch the actual inquiry but I love the context and explanation that your videos offer. I’m an expat in Ontario and hardly anyone here knows what I am referring to when I bring it up in conversation. I really was not impressed with his whole testimony, his supercilious air was really getting on my wick tbh. His lack of apology did not surprise me one bit, he seemed confused as to why he had to even make an attempt and it would have come across as hollow and insincere had he tried. A “hint” of a functioning psychopath me thinks 🤔

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Clare. Your lovely encouragement will help to keep me going with these videos :) p

[@JamesEJAtkins]

The last ten minutes or so .. the calm and incisive synthesis and conclusions are very, very good. Thank you.

[@phillipdale6464]

I do like your summation about useless executives at the top!As somebody who early in my working life believed that the people in charge knew what they were doing was late to realise they don’t.

[@heywoodm2000]

Not too long at all. Esp when the content is so insightful. There are many on KZbin for whom 3 mins is plenty, but for sophisticated and articulate witnesses making out they were doing a decent job when the opposite seems (in my humble opinion) true, we need this kind of in depth analysis. Thanks again. M

[@PaulDuckett]

That's such wonderful feedback. Thank you so much. That motivates me to keep going with these videos :)

[@maunsell24]

I had the misfortune of encountering Parker when he was Chairman of the National Trust. I'll leave readers to fill in the blanks... When the roles are separate and distinct, a successful CEO does not automatically transition into being a competent Chairman . The skillset required is different. He has had close ties to CVC Capital Partners for two decades. His constant spouting of 'you know' and 'with hindsight' really grates. If I had a fiver for each time he does it I could have a very pleasant weekend break at a country house hotel and spa.

[@markoconnor3763]

Welcome back! 😊

[@PaulDuckett]

Good to be back! Thanks Mark :)

[@jeannettestreet5521]

Brilliant. Not too long at all. All interesting. Brilliant dissection of the responses of Tim. More of the same please. Always love a Jason Beer side eye too !!

[@StewartLawson]

Another very insightful video. With it being an hour long, we were able to go into detail and really explore it so I love the longer videos. I watched Arr Tim's evidence and have to say I didn't notice a lot of what was looked at here or didn't appreciate the significance at the time. Thanks for doing these videos - they're fun to watch and incredibly informative. Really draws in the human element of what can be dry, legalese, technical blame dodging. Thanks Paul

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you so much Stewart, that is lovely feedback. I really appreciate you encouragement. p

[@markmywords99]

Thank you for that forensic examination of a truly loathsome individual.

[@PiperStart]

What an interesting perspective, which shows that there could have been a motive by this man in administering an injustice in order to achieve his ends, which was the closure of branches.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for lovely feedback p

[@JoH4LH44]

What a disingenuous mind shifter. No thought for the people who were criminalised as long as he could strut around (twice a month) looking clever. Thanks for your in depth analysis - very illuminating.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Jo - disingenious mind shifter. Love your turn of phrase and thank you for your lovely feedback. :)

[@robertovers1863]

two days a month ? take the late start, early finish and a free lunch with wine in the middle and its probably about 4 hours a month

[@PaulDuckett]

Another excellent point, succintly put. Thank you Robert.

[@peterkazmierczak7273]

Excellent stuff; 1h 9m of my life well spent watching this. Thanks for your clear insight, Paul, and the obvious effort you put into producing all this. Perhaps next, someone from Fujitsu. The executive Richard Christou looks quite interesting from a behavioural and accountability viewpoint. Ta for now...

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your lovely feedback Peter. I will put Richard Christou down on my list and will try my best to have a look at that one and see what I can come up with. p

[@alanyoung-pugh832]

Loved this one. I watched the whole thing initially without picking up on most of your insights and observations eg hands in pants. Tsk tsk Paul😂 And the hair!!? Engineering masterpiece. OMG (sorry could not help myself)

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks Alan ... my gosh, I can't tell you how hard it was for me to stay away from the hair ... consideraton of how I am badly in need of a visit to the hairdressers myself was the main thing that held me back!

[@alanyoung-pugh832]

@@PaulDuckettmm your hair is relatively normal. The Guinness book of records hairdo is extraordinary in the extreme

[@bkendlerA4]

A wonderful analysis of the Mr Parker. My view is that men/women who do the work they do are focussed on money or product but never people. I suspect Mr Parker' education and his work in business ensured that he hasn't got a moral bone in his body. There are too many Tim Parker' and not leaders who see their role in the context that a successful business can be built around shared objectives, caring for staff and developing ideas that are bottom-up as well as top down. The Parker's of this world think they know best but in truth they are part of what a former Prime Minister described as the unacceptable face of capitalism.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your feedback. Yes, 'unacceptable face of capitalism' perfectly sums it up. Thanks so much for reminding us of that :) You've brought a very useful focus to this.

[@j.j.c.s2802]

Thanks for this work - much appreciated.

[@samkayak8712]

This analysis is analytical, incisive and steeped in a psychological insight that lays bare the moral desert that exists in big business and government. I am interested by the role psychopathy plays in the context of business executives: and by extension how you police and punish these high flying leaders.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much Sam. Have you come acros Jon Ronson. Here's one of his most popular talks: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rorInqGBerCrZsU

[@Dadopŕsoblueboots]

What a nasty piece of work he really is. Giving money to charity doesn't make you a good person.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for your comment. Yep, you can't buy yourself morality :)

[@LeeFarrance]

Jimmy Savile also raised a lot of money for charity so it doesn’t necessarily make you a nice bloke.

[@davidbarnard2716]

Thank you Paul, yes it was a long video and I cannot speak for others, but it maintained my interest from beginning to end. A counter to hindsight as you rightly say is insight, or lack of in the case of Tim. It is also foresight. I believe that one of the reasons often put forward for paying enormous salaries to people at the top of organisations is because they have significant experience of businesses and the way they are supposed to operate. Their knowledge and experience is crucial in order to maximise the potential of its workforce for the good of those people, for the organisation and its shareholders. That high ambition surely requires the use of foresight, the ability to anticipate issues and possible outcomes and proactivity, to ensure that the organisation benefits from the balanced and expert experience of its highest paid executives. I wonder if the available pool of people able to do this really is so small that there are not enough to go round or is it more linked to that those executives having too much self interest or not enough emotional intelligence to provide the balanced approach the positions require. (or both). Would love to know what you think. Thanks again for your work on this, it is really good.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your feedback and for your comments. That's an excellent point. Yes, I agree, foresight was the thing he lacked. Really nicely said and nicely spotted. Your analysis is spot on. I think some corporations seem to effectively screen out candidates with emotional intelligence - it's seen as a weakness. p

[@DebbieBeal-zw9ld]

Fabulous video! Not too long at all I didn’t want it to end. Thank you x

[@josefpurrer1169]

Thanks Dr Paul - I think it was really important for me to self reflect on your observations about words and conduct, and when I myself have been guilty and therefore frustrated a point and failed a proper conclusion. It was therefore only long because it evoked such introspection. A long lesson but time very well spent.

[@JamesHollis-f2n]

Thank you, another clear easy to follow analysis of the post office scandal. Not to long, full of information thank you for spending time doing these videos. Very best wishes Vivien x

[@Wee_Langside]

In my experience of 40-50 years working is that any new director from MD down is a new broom sweeping clean. Most frequently asked question "What do you do and what value do you add?" This guy is obviously in that mold.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, definitely mold ... maybe even mildew :)

[@allenbracchi5689]

Excellent stuff 👍

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks 👍

[@shep5041]

Thank you for your efforts, intelligent and clever observations as always. Your time is valuable and we don’t mind waiting! 😊

[@timothyharris4708]

Thank you very much. You made me feel rather ashamed of sharing a first name with this person. One thing that struck me, though, was the tactic or ‘tell’ that, at least to me, showed that he was lying, as he surely did when he claimed that he couldn’t remember this or that, and in particular important meetings: after making such a claim, he would every time look directly at his interrogator as though daring him or her to challenge him or call him out. Brazening it out, one might say; and for all that faked affability, he was very brazen in his lying and his evasions. It was nine years ago, he says - I can remember important events and meetings from a great many years ago as if it were yesterday. And so can he.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much timothy, yes he seemed very brazen. Nicely summed up. And hey, I think there are more good tims in the world that bad ones. Here in Australia, the name Tim is highly valued - mostly because of a chocolate biscuit called the Tim Tam which is much loved by many Aussies :)

[@freeassange5151]

This is one of the few times you can see the wonderful benefit you can get out of UTUBE Thank you it was Brilliant .

[@jonicoates4750]

When I became aware of the ' Post Office Scandal ' my first reaction was why was Horizon be used when it appeared obvious that it was inadequate to check entries entered on the system when a discrepancy either way was produced at a balance. There has to be a checking system. And, why wasn't the number of times discrepancies occurred not looked into retrospectively, to determine if this number had increased significantly since the Horizon system had been introduced? If these two points had been acted upon, the injustice should not have occurred.

[@ninepinezine]

Never too long. Really insightful. Thanks.

[@Ian-Steele]

Definitely not too long. A superb analysis of the case of Tim Parker. With HINDSIGHT he is one disgraceful and disgusting individual. I just hope he sees this and it makes him feel guilty, but given his lack apology I doubt it.

[@davidchamberlain2162]

It was long. Because the content was excellent and analysis riveting. Thank you.

[@kathykay9920]

Excellent balanced analysis. Keep then coming, so fascinating.

[@fredduthy5465]

Very powerful stuff Dr Duckett. Heartwrenching

[@davidpowell8986]

Paul, I’ve watched a number of your videos with great interest. They have helped me to frame and understand better the why and how of this god awful mess. I agree with many of the other posters here that you conclusion feels “spot on”. I hadn’t considered that the prosecutions and closures might be advantageous to a hidden agenda advantageous to the “post office “ strategy but it seems so clear once pointed out. Thank you for your time and effort . I think lots of people appreciate your thoughtful and clear eyed observations, I certainly do.

[@jillchesser]

What insight...thank you.. my interest in this scandal has spanned years...

[@BoadiceanRevenge]

Excellent! Thank you so much for this! This guy made my skin crawl and blood boil! He was so smarmy too! And yet another one trying to control the Inquiry narrative. Never mind the prince of darkness, more like the Demon of Darkness!👍 🤦🤷😤🙏⚖️🙏

[@PaulDuckett]

Demons of Darkness does seem to fit better 😊 Thank you for your lovely encouragement.

[@BoadiceanRevenge]

Truly erudite! Thank you very much Sir! Prayers and sympathy for all those affected by this dreadful miscarriage of so-called British Justice (non-existant for some)! SNAFU, eh Mr. Starmer!?!😔🤨😮‍💨🙏⚖️🙏🕊️

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much and yes, let's all send out our thoughts to all thsoe SPMs.

[@XMan-tu4iu]

Good evening Dr Duckett, truly fantastic analysis and presentation! This is the first video of yours that I watched, and with hindsight I wish I’d found to earlier!!! I think the enquiry need to employ you to carry out the same analysis on every one of the Post Office employees and their lawyers so that we can better understand the true picture of how incredibly corrupt and incompetent they have been both in their day to day actions and how they have tried to manipulate their own actions as told to the enquiry under oath.

[@lw3646]

One thing to note though, no self incrimination warning from the judge like Alice Perkins had. Presumably not someone the police are looking at.

[@harrysmith6502]

Good old Timmy. Imagine if I worked for the AA and got laid off then took a job at Kwikfit and got laid off then imagine if my Mrs worked for Clarkes and she got laid off. No wonder he does things for charity. Helps to clear one’s conscience dear boy. Many thanks for what you do. It’s lush.

[@jeremyroberts39]

If 'Selective memory's ever became an Olympic sport......... methinks we've already got a world beating team! Great video....thanks

[@zugzwang2007]

The overall thoughts are that Tim Parker made a shifty impression, suffered from selective memory and got nettled when he realised his competence was being questioned. These are hard to dissent from. I am not sure, however, that his apparently inconsistent attitude towards legal authority is the sort of "tell" that it is made into in this analysis. The reason for this is that there is a difference between receiving legal advice, on which you are expecting to rely, and hearing just any old piece of opinion from a senior lawyer. It is completely routine that the chairman of a board confronts a governance problem by seeking advice, independent advice if the matter is sufficiently weighty. When you get the advice, though it may be disappointing, the opposite of what you hoped or expected, there is not much choice about whether to follow it (and I am writing from experience, about this). If you don't follow it, you are out on a limb, vulnerable to it being sawn off as you go forward. If you (or your organisation ) are then sued, you have voluntarily relinquished a key part of your defence, and also probably the protection of your personal liability insurance. On the other hand, you cannot ask for a second legal opinion without being accused of "opinion-shopping". The recipient of advice is trapped, in other words. He doesn't however, need to be a respecter of questions from Mr. Henry (although this might have been wise, when giving evidence to the inquiry); it may look the same but it doesn't carry the same burden of obligation. I should also mention the role played by Lord Grabiner, which intensified Tim Parker's difficulties over the recusal application. Lord Grabiner KC was not only a senior lawyer, but was giving emergency advice to the Post Office. To make matters worse, he was reported to have said that it was "the duty" of the board to make the application. This would have been a trigger for the board (particularly when the advice was relayed to them in their meeting by Jane McLeod). They would have felt the weight of the Companies Act hanging over them, fearing that they would have been wrong, in a technical legal sense, subject to prosecution if they did not carry out their duty. I am not impressed by Lord Grabiner saying to the Inquiry that he didn't mean this, because it is the sort of thing that sort of KC might well say, off the cuff, to stiffen the resolve of the board. I think it likely he used the word "duty", and more certain that the reports of what he said triggered the board into action. They would likely have thought they had no alternative. In the light of this, I felt it was a good passage of play for Tim Parker when he recounted how he responded to the recusal fiasco by sacking all of the legal advisers involved. This was a turning point for all concerned. Whether he is entitled to as much credit as he claimed is another question.

[@PaulDuckett]

This is a great post and yes, I think you are right to trouble my notion on the way he took legal advice. Your comments add something very important to the analysis. Thank you so much for taking the time to post it. p