Post Office Scandal - The Alice Perkins Apology

[@dadangus100]

She is so convinced of her superiority and is annoyed that lowly people should question her . Just an arrogant person who will never get an honour like MR Bates

[@owstonlad3859]

Yet they gave Vennells an award, albeit taken from her.

[@markmcintyre9893]

You know she’s already got a CB right?

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for posting. Mark's right. She got a CB. Kind of devalues those awards. p

[@lyntedrockley7295]

Lets remember her husband Jack Straw's role in lying about WMD.

[@flipooh]

😮 is this how she got the job…

[@PaulDuckett]

The way they described managing the conflict of interest was hilarious. All above board... yes, of course it was. Thanks for posting p

[@collier8931]

Absolutely, total disgusting liar who has blood on his hands.

[@Pmrace1960]

remember that QT when jack straw questioned Nick griffin about loyalty.......and griffin who is horrible himself said in WW2 when his dad was fighting with the RAF jacks dad was hiding behind the water closet

[@stevensmith6406]

"I want to apologise" is NOT the same as 'an unequivocal I apologise'. Weasel words crafted by media and/or legal people.

[@PaulDuckett]

Good to hear your views. thanks for posting. p

[@grangerover500]

"I am very, very sorry even though I did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact I was completely brilliant (except for when I wasn't.) But remember I have just had a VERY tiring morning and I really can't be arsed trying to feign any interest in your impertinent questions. Quite frankly you oiks should be a little more grateful that I have deigned to waste my day by showing up here."

[@milford8485]

You got it!!

[@PaulDuckett]

Now, that is what I call a good summary of her testimony. Well done. You've caputred it perfectly! p

[@grangerover500]

@@PaulDuckett Thank you!

[@michaeloleary2248]

@@PaulDuckett Excellent analysis. I have now subscribed. I will repeat here directly to you a comment I made elsewhere on the thread. Way back in the early to mid 90s, Alice Perkins was my boss. I rarely met her. She came to our office party one Christmas and behaved like the Queen, shaking hands with us lesser mortals and saying things like: "And what do you do?" "Have you come far?" I had to copy to her papers I had drafted. Her name on the copy list was autocorrected to "Alice Porkiness." She is coming out with a lot of porkies here I don't really think she owed her seniority to her husband. She is demonstrating at the inquiry the "skills" sheemployed to be a success in the civil service. They are not skills that impress the world beyond the mandarinate. She has a silky facility to manipulate words to obfuscate and evade. It is all about damage limitation. It has not gone down well at the inquiry. She has been found out. She is no match for the real forensic skills of people such as Ed Denny KC.

[@grangerover500]

@@michaeloleary2248 V interesting and also sounds familiar, I assume that was when she was still in Whitehall. I used to work in a Whitehall department with Sharon White who is now in charge of John Lewis. When I heard she'd been appointed there I just couldn't understand why they'd appointed her Chair when she had no prior experience in retail... and look how that's turned out!!

[@woodenseagull1899]

This woman is completely detached from reality......!

[@richmondene0413]

to suit her self

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for posting :) p

[@beammeup8458]

4 years ?? WHAT THE HELL WAS SHE BEING PAID FOR ?? LIAR !!

[@pdubya4690]

She was being paid for being asleep at the wheel and any notion of competence, leadership or common sense was thrown out of the nearest window the instant she crossed the POL threshold.

[@PaulDuckett]

Indeed! p

[@ChrisSmith-Krinkle]

"I want to apologise..." is not an apology. Is she saying I want to apologise but I'm not going to? Sounds like it to me. Why can't she say "I apologise..."

[@PaulDuckett]

Good point :) Thanks for posting p

[@johnarmstrong8694]

Absolutely superb interpretation of this insincere apology. Very very well done! Found it most interesting. She demonstrated an appalling lack of humility in the manner she portrayed by appearing to be totally disinterested in fact bored by having to be called to the enquiry. Her chin resting on her right hand when answering questions was wholly inappropriate and ignorant in the extreme. How on earth was this person appointed to be chairman of the PO board. It would be most interesting if the selection board that confirmed the appointment were named and shamed and made to attend the enquiry and make apologies to all concerned for the horrendous error of judgement they committed in so appointing such an unsuitable figure to such an important position of responsibility.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for posting and for your kind words. Yes, the chin rest was not a good look ... for someone so obvious focused on optics, she seems to have taken her eye off the ball there! p

[@John-bs6ut]

Yes I'd love to know who appointed her and on what grounds. Imagine at her interview: Have you any experience of running a company that is totally reliant on IT systems? Answer: No. Interviewer: Great, you've got the job!!

[@johnarmstrong8694]

@@John-bs6ut Absolutely another question! As the organisation has a total of 11,000 plus retail outlets what previous experience to you posses in a retail environment. Answer NONE, response, brilliant just what I was hoping you would say! Just the sort of person we are looking for.

[@desmondmagrath8262]

How was this person ever appointed Chairman. She comes across as arrogant, totally ignorant of corporate governance. She's an utter disgrace and should be prosecuted for lack corporate liability.

[@neilfitzsimmons1800]

That's why they are chosen... totally sociopath.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for posting desmond :) p

[@c-9233]

Very good analysis, sir. My tuppence worth: 2:15 Alice Perkins "I have some understanding of what people have been through, and the ways, the different ways, in which their lives were wrecked over so many, many years" I see this as translating to the time her self-entitled privileged son got caught selling some weed. Alice, you have understanding of tiddly pat. The apology was crass in the extreme. The lawyers are representing the sub-postmasters. So for Alice, that meant business as usual - show them contempt.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely summed up. Thank you :) p

[@greenzero3389]

Thanks for your insight, brilliant video. Perkins showed her clear disdain and the nepotism that exists in her life. At times, Perkins attitude towards Sir Wynn could be described as flirting.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for you kind comments. And, nice observation about Perkins :) p

[@simonbertioli4696]

She simply swept the problem under the carpet. I do not believe in her statement of apology. By saying sorry for the suffering of those people, is almost passing it to one side...end of problem... That is arrogance. The bottom line is she knew and given the years in the PO...she clearly knew. Whatever anyone says. She is responsible. She sat at home smiling and laughing with friends.. relaxed Whilst the innocently convicted, sat and suffered behind bars...not laughing or smiling. Searching for a reason as to why nobody believes them. Sad... l feel for people like those...they don't need it .

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, it's hard not to think so. Thanks for posting. p

[@craigtroth4524]

I was moved by your comment, at the end of the video, wnere you said "thats enough anger from me". The reason that the words moved me was tnat there is never any anger in your voice when you speak about those who are sat before the inqury....your speech is always calm and you deliver the story in an informative manner thats goes a long way to help everyone understand what these people are saying in their appearances before the inquiry...i am watching this from afar, in Australia, and much enjoy your work...every person in the UK has every right to be angry including you Paul...keep up the good work

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your kind words. Yep, we haev a right to angry and when it's moral anger, that's the fuel we need to change things. Am in Aus myself, I immigrated here 12 years ago. So, watching from afar, but feels strangely close to home ... robodebt! p

[@stevelondonse23]

Totally get you and your analysis. I was a mental health nurse for over a decade and understand how people phrase things and behave. I have a Masters in Law so understand evidence and the legal system. You are spot on with your analysis.

[@peterhanlon8324]

I worked as a civil servant and social worker for many years. I am sure that both you and I have experienced the ‘management’ translated as uncaring and unprincipled riding roughshod over clients and professionals alike The point being in today’s society good people are not cherished. Instead they try to use them.

[@PaulDuckett]

That's so good to hear. Thank you :) p

[@gascaptain]

Really worthwhile comment, much appreciated

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for you lovely feedback p

[@ogstopper]

Graet analysis. Thank you. Alice "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I'M MARRIED TO?" Perkins is a highly-intelligent and malign individual who has been taught the art of 'spin'. She spent all her time and evidence in telling us how she, and she alone, tried to do something about the situation. IMHO.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank so much for you kind feedback. And, yes, she was use the art of spin throughout. Well put.

[@rosssimpson6268]

This arrogant woman bears at least as much, if not more, blame for the scandal as Paula Vennells! It was she who disposed of Second Sight's services, thus preventing disclosure of the glitches in Horizon that they had identified and whose disclosure would have likely prevented many of the successful prosecutions of SPMs! This was not a case of incompetence, but of deliberate suppression of relevant facts! She bears the blame for most of the harm that was illegitimately heaped upon SPM! Her apology is not, imo, that she is sorry for what was done to them, but that she is sorry for being exposed as the primary cause!

[@cassandratq9301]

Exactly.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely said. Thanks so much for posting :) p

[@bobsanders9500]

With great power comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, what we have seen with these senior POL executives is that with great power, there has been an abdication of responsibility. The higher you go, the less likely they are to acknowledge their mistakes or accept responsibility for the results.

[@ralphbrooks2132]

The goons lower down the food chain in the Post Office (or those that I have seen so far giving evidence to the Inquiry) don't impress me more with their acceptance of responsibility nor any having empathy for those they persecuted. Some can't even seem to understand or take responsibility for that which they have signed off in their own witness statements, much less for what they actually did during the course of their "investigations" of the sub-postmasters/mistresses! At least Alice Perkins has sufficient respect for the proceedings to have come better prepared, and to actually listen intently to the questions. That may come over as arrogance to some. Perhaps that is fair criticism of her, but I can understand that it must be a difficult balancing act to demonstrate remorse for your own part in what is after all a much bigger corporate failure, whilst at the same time being conscious of the risk of self incrimination.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, great point, well made. p

[@barbarajones9385]

Great detailed analysis of Perkins' use of evasive, slippery language.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, slippery was a good way of describing this. Thanks for posting. p

[@mrechelon7051]

Her attitude is " how dare you question me about my complete incompetence and huge salary for doing nothing"

[@PaulDuckett]

hahaha, yes, nicely summed up :)

[@lifeonanotherplanet]

'I've had a long day.' 🤨

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, the poor dear.... surprising that she didn't seem to think how that might be read by the public. Tone deaf!

[@lifeonanotherplanet]

@@PaulDuckett Dr Jekyll turned into Mrs Hyde

[@dinacox1971]

Calm and brilliant!! Thank you. I needed that as I can just find myself screaming at my computer as I watch this inquiry.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thats fab to hear. And yes, privately I scream at the screen too! p

[@philippedley5073]

I don't know what she spent her bonuses on but it wasn't her hair.

[@PaulDuckett]

I can't comment on that given I only go to the hairdressers once a year! p

[@jamesbunyan9781]

Very insincere, just like the rest. I note that the Post Office still tries its, damnest to delay and minimise any liabilities due to those who were damaged. Its just an exercise in covering their own collective arses. Disgusting.

[@PaulDuckett]

i agree. p

[@grahamhand8644]

I think the reason that these apologies are not well received is because they come at the start of a 2 or 3 day session where we find out that they absolutely knew about the bugs, errors and defects (or as the disgraced CEO's husband put it, anomalies) but continued to use their positions and their access to financing for lawyers, investigators and forensic accountants as well as their access to people well placed within government to destroy the SPMR's, regardless of what the evidence showed or what they themselves knew.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, great point. Thanks for posting p

[@RAHellemans]

Interesting analyses. One question I though to have heard that her current job was "Professor of Company governance" at a renounced University, is that true?

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for you lovely feedback. Not heard that she has a university appointment. So, can't comment.Also, haven't been able to find anything about her current appointments. Good question though ... would be nice to know what she is up to at the moment. p

[@albertliu1068]

I watched the whole enquiry session on her, she was anything but sincere from start to finish. She thinks she is better than the others. The attitude from her is like 'it happened to you, its too bad !'

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, nicely summed up. Thanks for posting. p

[@Mawa991]

Horrible evidence from her. Brilliant take on it by you!

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you :)

[@brianlopez8855]

Alice Perkins, wife of the former Labour Foreign Secretary and War Criminal, Jack Mr Magoo Straw: We are still waiting for His Apology. ["hand under chin" is not a good look Alice].

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, not a good look at all! p

[@pengwong4002]

Empress Alice Dowager. Self denial and obnoxious till her last days. Remember how did Empress Dowager end...The public and police will vindicate ALL those who suffered and still sufffering

[@cleopatraoatcake7364]

"Imperious" would seem to be her middle name. She's the worst!

[@PaulDuckett]

Dowager ... perfect. Thank you! p

[@williamoates1754]

Both thew Post Office Senior and Local managements have bee feral for many years, unfair disapplinary practices, failed health and safety practices. i can even recall a case where an employee won a financial settllement in a health and safety case, the P.O. appealed, the case went back to court and the amount awarded was doubled by the judge. This is what happens when an organisation like the P.O is allowed to continue unchecked, bucket loads of public money wasted, and lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. It's happening now. Sunak has set aside more public money for compensation when it is Fujitsu (strangely quiet) who should be footing the bill. They sold a system under false pretences paid for by public money, and then kept hidden the fact that it was remotely accessible from an external source, and did not disclose a directory full of known faults until their arm was twisted. The Post Office have continued to persecute Postmasters even when they knew the system was faulty. The Postmasters deserve justice for this but, lets not ever forget, or belittle the part played by Fujitsu and it's software that brought all this about. 16 Reply

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your posting. You've made a great observations here. Much appreciated. p

[@GreenEggsNz]

Great breakdown of the psychology of the apology. They could all be summed up with : i did nothing as i really didnt accept how horrible we had become and i could never admit that.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, you've nicely summed up her 'apology', thank you :)

[@greyt00th]

I cannot understand the logic of dropping all pretence once Beer’s questions were over. It was so sudden and obvious. What was she thinking? Theories on the back of a postcard… not “she’s arrogant” etc as that’s a cop out answer. Genuinely wtf was going on there?

[@cassandratq9301]

Her capacity for pretense was limited.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, it was so obvious ... I think she forgot that the cameras were on her. Clearly it was a very bad look indeed. p

[@heywoodm2000]

Another great analysis, especially spotting the sandwiching of her tiny 4 years at the top between two bigger things to make it all seem like she was simply a thwarted hero. I think you have proved not only that it was carefully crafted with legal advice, but that it wasn't actually an apology of any sorts anyway nor intended to be so.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you :) p

[@IanHodgetts]

"That's enough anger from me". If that was anger, it was very eloquently conveyed! Excellent analysis.

[@PaulDuckett]

Awwww, thanks .... that's lovely of you to say.

[@DavidMoore1948]

Please carry on the good work. It has been an eye opener listening to you and you r explanations regarding the different characters. One can only hope that the Judge has the same clarity of vision as yourself.

[@jamescoburn6789]

The Albert Speer defence. I didn't know but I should have known.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, interesting parallel p

[@johnhoneyball2338]

Thanks for this and your videos. I'd love you to bring a guest solicitor in Then show how the information they are being made to bring forward could have legal implications for them. Also when she says I'm sorry I didn't do more. Where is the evidence of her request for increasing the scope of the inquiry so we can see what detail she asked for?

[@PaulDuckett]

Oh yes, that would be good. Sadly I don't have any solicitors I could draw on to make an appearance ... maybe a good sign that I haven't felt the need to contact one recently!). Great suggestion though! And excellent question in relation to her saying she tried to increase the scope of the inquiry. p

[@ParanormalUKNetwork]

She treated the Lawyers for the subpostmasters with contempt. She seemed to view them as somehow beneath her, and she couldn't see why she had to answer their questions. "Some understanding"-what nonsense. And it's clear that she made no attempt to get to the truth of what was going on. Indeed, she aided in the cover-up.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely put. Thanks for posting. p

[@snapdragon1194]

This presenter has summed up exactly what I have been thinking every time I hear the culprits apologize for what they put the post master's through. They have all tried to evade their culpability by blaming the Post office for what they all did. Absolute cowardly and truly lacking of any sense of blame.

[@PaulDuckett]

nicely put. thanks for posting p

[@ParanormalUKNetwork]

Dr. Paul, please take a look at George Thomson's testimony, which was delivered on 21 June. His attitude is utterly undeliverable, and his sheer contempt for the Inquiry is obvious and ridiculous.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, saw it and fell over in shock. Wow! George!. Its taken me few days to analysis and have now got something that hopefully takes a different angle on it than the obvious ones. Video is ready to upload but am having some technical issues with the upload but hopefully it will be up soon :)

[@ParanormalUKNetwork]

@@PaulDuckett I'm look forward to watching it.

[@alainaaugust1932]

At 10:01 the way Perkins sits there resting her head on her hand just screams “Now go on, dearie. This is just all so tiresome. Don’t you know who I am? I’d like to scream at you as you’re so far beneath me, but I have to sit here holding my lips closed with my hand! Oh, you cheeky little xxxx.”

[@ruibcaable]

I would have liked this video many more times if it was an option. Thank you for your work. I'm sure the whole of the UK and humanity appreciates it

[@PaulDuckett]

Awwwww, that so nice of you to say. Thank you. Comments like your's keeps me motivated to keep going with this stuff. p

[@marilynstolberg5534]

Thank you for this in depth analysis of her apology. The "apologies" that have been offered during the POL scandal are predictably vague and deflecting, and are getting tiresome and ingenuous. As I watch the ongoing testimonies in this scandal, I continually see the destain of those in power (the "haves") for those who do the day to day work (the "have nots"), not recognizing the value and importance of all humanity. On a personal note, your analysis of an apology was a good object lesson for me, as I consider how I might best provide apologies of value and sincerity when I screw up. Thanks.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your lovely feedback and glad my video has been helpful for you. That's the main reason I make them, so to hear this is fab... p

[@anthonymccabe7800]

It's always "The Post Office" which has done something bad, never the person being questioned, the effort they put into detaching themselves from their callous and disinterested performance is detestable.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely put! Thanks for posting. p

[@joshuaryan1946]

There should be more blunt asking of the question-- "So you're sorry that wong was done--what did YOU DO WRONG?"

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, I agree. Thanks for posting. p

[@andykenny5674]

Sadly, people who reach senior positions in institutions are very often not particularly pleasant people. A good example of this would be the NHS, whereby senior managers are rarely caring people, despite labelling themselves as Health CARE Trusts. Life nowadays is often about PR spin, rather than reality. How often have we all heard the standard disaster statement “a full and thorough investigation/enquiry will be carried out, and lessons will be learned.” This effectively diffuses any such disaster and moves the focus away from greed and incompetence by the people at the top who are handsomely paid to do their jobs properly. Obviously, “lessons will be learned” - until the next time it happens, which it undoubtedly will.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for posting. Yep, the wrong people move up the chain or command and the wrong people get pushed down it. p

[@johnmoncrieff3034]

This is one of the most arrogant individuals who were in charge of the Post Office! She claimed that the Sub Post Officers suffered at the hands of the Post Office. She was not taking responsibility for the part she and all the others at the top of the PO played in that suffering! She ,Vennells and the others were the ones wholey responsible for the continued charging and fining them for nothing they had done wrong!

[@PaulDuckett]

Very nicely put. Thanks so much for posting p

[@jamesgilbart2672]

That perfunctory, insincere and weaselly apology only made her and her co-conspirators look more loathsome and self-serving. She needs to change her attitude as she'll find a jail cell a lot more tiresome than being questioned by a board of enquiry.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nice post. :) p

[@paulcaister3759]

A fascinating analysis of the very modern way words are now used. I'm sure it has occurred to you that the effortless mendacity of people like this woman is endemic throughout the manager class. My landlord does it, my GP surgery does it, my phone company does it. The media is treating the scandal as an appalling one-off whereas the real lesson is that injustice is everywhere. The same will be done when the Countess of Chester enquiry happens. I am a new subscriber.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, systemic is the word, I think :)

[@joshuaryan1946]

Insightful analysis!

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your encouragement. p

[@dave28d]

If that apology was "sincerely meant", then why was it followed by testimony and answers that were nothing but avoidance of responsibility, denials and obfuscation - ?

[@PaulDuckett]

Excellent point. p

[@Glen6819]

Thank you, Paul, for your inciteful analysis of Alice Perkins’ testimony. I tried to watch this odius and arrogant woman but could not stomach it. I agree with everything you have to say, and I look forward to future video analysis of the inquiry.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your encouragement. I will stick at it and try to get some more content out soon. p

[@Thomas-vf5be]

Thank you so much for doing this!

[@PaulDuckett]

You're so welcome! :) p

[@eegaugh]

Another insightful video; thank you.

[@PaulDuckett]

Awww, thanks so much :)

[@johntaylor7612]

Everyone of the Sub Post Office managers should have a case against all the Management team of POL "For defamation of Character" there names have been smeared.

[@PaulDuckett]

yes, excellent point. p

[@lynnechapman6202]

@PaulDuckett To add to Dr Duckett’s analysis of Alice Perkins’ differences in demeanour in the way she responds to Sir Wyn Williams and Mr Jason Beer KC (i.e. the most senior figures in the Inquiry) and the way she responds to other barristers, I was watching her body-language. I'm no expert in this but I do find it fascinating! To me (and as I mentioned, I'm no expert ... I probably don't even know the basics!) Alice Perkins almost slumping, with 'hand under chin' tells me 3 things: (1) she's feeling very 'uncomfortable' (if she were feeling confident and self assured, she would be sitting upright & straight, with her hands motionless in front of her, e.g. not picking at her nails (which Paula Vennells did on a number of occasions); (2) the ‘slumping’ indicates a sense of resignation that she has been ‘found out’ (and that other people realise she has been found out); and (3) by resting her chin on her hand she is wishing the cross-examination to be over as soon as possible; she does not want to be in the public gaze but of course she can’t literally cover her face! - or even just her mouth, because she is still required to speak - but subconsciously, this is the closest she can be to be ‘hiding’. That’s just my ‘take’ on her body language at this part of the interview. Finally, going back to apology itself: she is reading it from a piece of paper (presumably so that she gets the wording ‘exactly right’: Dr Duckett explains why this is so important, and she doesn’t trust herself to have memorised this exact wording and risk ‘slipping up’). That’s just my presumption, but whether I’m correct or not is irrelevant: how can an apology of ANY sort be ‘sincere’ when it’s read from a script rather than spoken straight from the heart?

[@milford8485]

good analysis

[@PaulDuckett]

Such great points and really interesting analysis of her body language. Nice work Lynne p

[@jimwoods9551]

If it was a sincere apology for something for which she took responsibility, I would think it merits a thoughtful compassionate prewritten notes; I would disagree with you there. However I found her testimony fascinating and watched for several hours. She was completely detached, she could have been talking about beheading prisoners or deadheading roses for all her engagement. She obviously made her career out of this disengagement, her employers (the Government) were obviously equally pleased. She made only the most feeble attempts to correct the course of POL, she failed entirely to identify the malevolent incompetence of Vennells, and failed to detect the similar traits in her CEO's staff and associated legal advisors. It would be a mistake to see this person as a high functioning individual capable of redirecting a large institution heading off the ethical road like a freight train. Beneath the highly articulate cool exterior lies a very modest intellect, who still does not understand her role in corporate responsibility. I'm not surprised her testimony sounded like it was crafted by lawyers and gifted PR houses.

[@lynnechapman6202]

@@jimwoods9551 I think we're both essentially saying the same thing, but in different ways! I haven't seen Alice Perkins' testimony (only the excerpts which Dr Duckett has included in his very insightful analysis, as a psychologist) but I saw most of Paula Vennells' testimony. In that, there were countless "I didn't realise ... " - "I don't recall ... " - "I can't remember ..." and so on. There were also a number of times when she asked for a particular question to be repeated, or stated she didn't understand the question. (To give her the benefit of doubt, maybe she genuinely didn't hear the question due to an issue with the sound equipment or whatever in the studio, and maybe 'missed' parts of other questions due to the same reason.) The questions were clearly audible to anyone watching the live feed, and even I (as a total lay-person) understood what was being asked, as the questions were very concise in nature. So, barring any problems with the sound in the studio, the impression I got, in Ms Vennells’ interview, was that by asking for questions to be repeated or rephrased she was ‘buying time’ to think of a credible answer to a question she hadn’t been expecting. Personally I don’t believe Alice Perkins, Paula Vennells or any of the main protagonists DON’T have the intellect for the roles they held; my personal belief is that the opposite is true (which is why they were appointed to such senior positions, or “rose through the ranks” to these positions). My personal belief is that they knew exactly what they were doing and, together with their lawyers, are now using ‘dumb-ness’ as a smokescreen to hide behind … which is why as you say, Jim, her testimony sounds “crafted by lawyers and gifted PR houses”. As for whoever came up with Alice Perkins’ line about having “tried my very best to get to the bottom of what was going on, but I failed” (or whatever her wording was) - whether it was herself or one of her lawyers - that remark was ill-judged in the EXTREME because it clearly isn’t true, and for me that remark crushed any credibility she may otherwise have had. When I have time, I’ll watch her entire testimony with interest!

[@lynnechapman6202]

@@PaulDuckett Thank you, Paul! I'm no psychologist (in fact I'm a retired pharmacist) but were I able to "have my time again" I think I would probably choose to go into forensic and /or criminal psychology!

[@wildsage6852]

Offering any disclaimer nullifies any intent. Therefore this apology is a non starter.

[@PaulDuckett]

Good point. Many thanks for posting. p

[@marybusch6182]

Malignant AND criminal negligence. This is not a joke.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, nicely to the point. Thanks for posting. p

[@RobertJonesWightpaint]

I did notice the quite abrupt change in attitude when the counsel for the Inquiry passed the questioning over to the other participants' representatives; on the other hand, she is 75 years old - getting tired is understandable, isn't it? You can analyse these things to death, but it's all an exercise in retrospection - I'm not sure how useful this step-by-step deconstruction of evidence really is. What will matter here in the end is the evidence, not psychoanalysis of individuals giving evidence under pressure.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, fair point. Perhaps it's just that she didn't handle her explanation too well. She could have been less confrontational about being tired and just said 'I am so sorry, but I am not at my best, but I know this is important so I will stick with it' or something like that. Given she knows to be careful wtih words, I think we need to consider that she is being deliberate with how she went about it. But, I also get what you mean about over analysing. As an academic, its kind my job, but that doesn't mean I'm always useful! :) p

[@brianlopez8855]

Although the line of cowboy hats is a good start, I'm still waiting, as Dr Todd Grande would also appreciate, for the line of Cacti, behind you.

[@PaulDuckett]

Okay, I'll do that when I get 10k subscribers :) p

[@brianlopez8855]

@@PaulDuckett Ok you're on. Great analysis btw.

[@michaeloleary2248]

@@PaulDuckett You have one more now!

[@beammeup8458]

When will she go to prison ???

[@PaulDuckett]

The key question! Thanks for posting, p

[@cassandratq9301]

Excellent + psychologicallly helpful. Subscribed.

[@PaulDuckett]

Awww, thank you for your encouragement and your sub. Much appreciated. p

[@nickjung7394]

Thanks very much for this.

[@PaulDuckett]

it was my pleasure :) p

[@Anthony-eb5gl]

The mantra WAS and still IS, contempt......And the apologies ARE difficult, BECAUSE they are NOT sincere.....

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, you nailed it. Thanks for posting. p

[@ChangesOneTim]

"I did not succeed in getting to the bottom of it...." Kindest thing to say about that is the evidence points to her never trying to. Or, opposite end of the scale, she behaved like an officious Head Girl type deliberately stamping on a junior's pet rabbit then saying "Oops! Sorry." Time will tell.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely put. Thank you p

[@Peter-pv6rl]

Been following all the clips from the post office find it so interesting , I would love to here what you think of the recent inquiry on George Thompson .

[@PaulDuckett]

Am already working on it! Hopefully will have a video ready by the end of the week. At the moment ... it's not looking like I am going to be too complementary towards him! :) p

[@andrewobrien6671]

Paul. I have no experience of Psychology, but enjoy your videos. What struck me was her body language during her evidence. During the replies to core participants her hand under the chin and facing them directly seems very aggressive and confrontational. Does body language play a large part in Psychological study and evaluation? Any answers welcome from anybody with experience. Thanks. PS I have been following the story and inquiry for 3 yrs so I feel like I have skin in the game, in the way

[@PaulDuckett]

Many thanks and, yes, great observation. A lot of psychology does spend a lot of time trying to tell the world they psychologists can read body language. 'Truth' is we are not better than anyone else and its always, at best, an inference. So, someone crosses their legs in the direction of the person they most like .... or they are crossing their legs because they need to go to the loo and are trying to hold it in! So, it's all guess work really. 3yrs in the game. Wow, must feel good to finally see the public fully get what's going on. Thanks again for you post. Great to hear from you. p

[@stephendixon8575]

Wow! - Think the only way I can describe that Paul is a true masterclass in how to express anger and frustration in the most incredibly well controlled, analytical way. I appreciate that your focus and area of expertise is principally psychology Paul, but as a solicitor myself for about 25 years, I think you would have made you a bloody good lawyer too 😉🙌

[@PaulDuckett]

Thank you so much. I shall print and place your comment on my wall along with the less positive response from @verynormalman (who responded to my Vennells vs van den Bogerd video). Yours will be there to give me energy to carry on, theirs to prevent me from becoming complacent . Oh, and had you criticsed my video, I would have sued you for defamation :)

[@valrodgers8889]

The woman doesn’t have a compassionate bone in her body. When Mr Jacob’s said he would slow down, she didn’t realise he was being sarcastic. Unlike Mr Beer who has to show constraint, these lawyers are more or less given free reign🇦🇺

[@PaulDuckett]

I am so sorry for taking so long to acknowledge your comment. Yep, I love how those lawyers acting for the sub postmasters are more unleashed. :) p

[@TomHing-l1w]

Thanks. A very analytical approach to the language but I am not sure I can imagine the speaker's similar analysis of what they are saying. I don't think the speaker knows what they are saying actually, just defending themselves in an automated way consistant with their role in the scandal

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for posting. Yep, I think you are right. In the heat of the moment, I think they forget about the optics and just end up in autoreply mode. p

[@pipinellio]

She wanted to be in charge, have the image of authority and reap the associated reward - but without the tough work of getting to the real nub of complex issues.

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, nice observation. They want the power, but not the responsbility! p

[@corringhamdepot4434]

This is how somebody talks when they have spent their lives at the top of bureaucratic Civil Service style organisation. Used to making carefully crafted insincere statements, that everybody knows are mostly BS, but never get questioned. As raising questions on Senior Management is the fastest way to end your career, or loose a contract. Her plan was to just get her "apologies" read into the inquiry, in anticipation of possible future litigation. So being questioned on them by "little people" was outside her experience, and therefore very annoying.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nice observation. Thanks for posting :) p

[@chrissailing8856]

Alice Perkins made a claim that she had had to get replace of most of the board. So why didn’t she put in place those who would support. She can’t have it both ways.

[@PaulDuckett]

Good point! Thanks so much for posting p

[@TheStratpicker]

Paul - astute observations and your anger is justified. I lived in a small village with just a combined Post Office and general store, and it was indeed a major part of the community - society and community being dirty words in the eyes of the Thatcherite world that spawned much of this debacle. The now Sir Alan & Lady Bates are beacons of hope, to say something.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for you great post and kind comments. Beacon's of hope indeed. We were desparately needing a hero ... and heros often come from unexpected places! Hopefully this will re-energise the people so we stop taking this crap and start taking back control :) p

[@TheStratpicker]

@@PaulDuckett We can but hope. Interesting that even the lawyers seem to have the knives out for Gareth Jenkins - "architect" of all things bad, or (naive) victim of others' ill intent, and not being able to think outside his own technical box enough to join the dots. His cold, but consistent way of answering questions quite spontaneously, was in stark contrast to other witnesses also in the frame.

[@BoadiceanRevenge]

Wouldn't it be fantastic if just one Witness said that the best apology they could give was to tell the truth. And then tell it! 🤷😔🙏⚖️🙏

[@PaulDuckett]

You are living in dreamland :) But, it's good to dream :) Thanks for posting p

[@sirsedgwickquinton459]

What an incisive analysis. One needs to have been trained very well at listening to dissect obfuscation in such a conclusive way. Dr Paul Duckett exposes what in general is feed by public persons so frequently whether in this legal context, or as in a political or business sense. I have worked ( now long retired) from senior management in large ( manufacturing ) companies and find the obfuscation a primary signal of incompetence. “I have some understanding after 4 years of serious effort”. Is another way of saying I was not competent. In my experience many incompetents have use this sort of obfuscation along with cerographic efforts to divert attention to someone else’s responsibility. Its as if they have been trained in the art.. I mentioned manufacturing because if something is not quickly resolved the business goes belly up. We shall have to wait to see the outcome. Excellent video

[@PaulDuckett]

So pleased you found my analysis useful. Obfuscated incompetence. You have captued that brilliantly. That is a summing up that needs to go on a Tshirt :) Thanks so much for posting. p

[@philipeoverton]

Very inciteful. Thanks.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much, glad you found it useful. p

[@flakieflake9616]

As a victim of this myself I will say once again what I have said elsewhere that Vennells et al are being scapegoated in order to protect members of the establishment in positions of power whose names we don't even know and who wrote the targets, approved of it all, and sanctioned it. All political parties and their respective ministers are guilty but perhaps worst are the civil servants who had full visibility of what was going on and ordered the board to carry on regardless. Vennells and the board had no authority to spend £100 million plus on legal fees against JSPM someone first in the civil service and then a government minister - or more had to authorise this and yet we don't know who these people were nor the criteria they used to make that decision. The chances are that we never will know and that Vennells and others will be used as a shield to protect the establishment figures who are the greatest villains.

[@PaulDuckett]

You make a really good point. Thanks so much for pointing. I think you are right. There are clearly folk getting scapegoated at the bottom. We should forget about hwo they also try to scapegoat some at the top too. p

[@Lynnefromlyn]

Ps. Thanks for the good work.

[@PaulDuckett]

Awwwww. thank you :)

[@maritadean2905]

Thanks for your synopsis I love hearing you , especially on this scandal .

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much for your encouragement :) I really appreciate it. p

[@dave28d]

Her performance is the mask slipping that normally covers her contempt for the 'little people'.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nice metaphor thanks for posting. p

[@robertnewton6454]

Carefully crafted apology Is that not the problem These apologies come across as perfunctory The public apology comes across as insincere Something that has to be said The witnesses are perceived as conducting an exercise of self protection

[@PaulDuckett]

Well said and thanks for posting p

[@nickjung7394]

Water, energy and railways next?

[@PaulDuckett]

Lots of scandals sitting there I reckon p

[@RobertSmith-di5ll]

When oh when can we stop accepting an apology for bad stuff - it is simply insufficient. New mugs with "Apologise and carry on"?

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, that should be the new moto. rather than stay calm, carry on. I think you could have a new line in Tshirts there! I think it sums it up perfectly. Well done. :) p

[@huntface]

It would be amusing if Lady Straw went inside!

[@PaulDuckett]

Ohhh, that's a thought! Thanks for sharing it :) p

[@poshiesmom]

She is so arrogant and conceited - her body language where she slouches over the desk with hand under her chin looking obviously bored whist being interviewed by the lawyers - is disgraceful

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, it was a terrible look. p

[@BoadiceanRevenge]

At last! Some Truth,! From the Second Sight guys! Yay! Nothing wrong with their memories! Indeed far from it! As for Who The Devil is Alice - she is INSIDIOUS! Cheers me dear! 🙋🙏⚖️🙏👍

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, interesting how memory works. Of course, when they say they can't remember, what they are really saying, if they are truthful about not remembering, is that at the time they didn't care, it was a banal event and that's why they have forgotten all about it. p

[@malcolmblack9037]

Well done

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks so much, p

[@VeronicaKingsley-by9nc]

Alice Perkins does have a point - who instigated this policy back in 1999? who wrote the unfair contract with the Post Master? Who (and family members) had shares in Amazon? Who appointed these people? Who awarded them bonus for closing post-office and transforming them into dumps? (also destroying the high Street presence)? and how many pieces of silver (bonuses) were they paid. Why were sub-par people put in such positions? These are the question the enquiry should answer and get the money from those who prospered from the policy of removing money from the Post Master personally. And as the Post masters were sent for trial for money that no-one could prove they had taken - why aren't the board/Fitjsui on trial - when it is clear that they falsely demanded money from Post Masters.

[@PaulDuckett]

You raise some important questions. Thanks so much for posting. p

[@neilfitzsimmons1800]

Classified sociopath in action. Anyone studying human behaviour sociopaths just watch this.

[@PaulDuckett]

thanks so much for posting. p

[@normalatham233]

None of them will go to prison No one will go to prison.

[@PaulDuckett]

Thanks for posting. Sadly, I think you might be right. p

[@bobsanders9500]

I differentiate the two main political parties in NZ thus: Labour (left of centre) care about people, National (right of centre) care about profits. This is reflected in their respective policies. I suspect the same is true of England and is evident in the actions and attitudes of the Tory appointed bureaucrats. I think the reason the POL directors, senior managers, and lawyers behaved so badly has a lot to do with their prioritising profits over people. These extremely well paid executives did not want to risk losing performance bonuses by properly investigating the inconvenient truth that SPMs were being blamed for phantom losses created by a faulty software system.

[@milford8485]

I hate to burst your bubble of trust but in reality virtually no politician cares about people. They care about their careers. There are a tiny few world-wide who are genuine.

[@bobsanders9500]

@@milford8485 Sorry, I disagree. While the majority of politicians appear driven by ego rather than altruism, there are some who do genuinely care about people. Jacinda Adern and Helen Clark (both former NZ prime ministers) are examples.

[@milford8485]

@@bobsanders9500 Yes... Stalin was nice too.... & Franco.

[@bobsanders9500]

@@milford8485 If you live in America or the UK I can understand your scepticism about politicians. However, as Joseph de Maistre said, "Every nation has the government it deserves." Bad people get elected because good people don't want to run for office.

[@PaulDuckett]

Bob, you are right in terms of that was the political distinction and might have had the ring of truth about it in the UK around 40 years ago. Sadly, from what I remember of the UK (I left in 2012), the left had run to the centre and the right straddle the far right and the centre and they both tried pulling at the working classes which ultimately tore the working classes apart. p

[@stephenpowers51]

Just another self-serving, pro-forma, by-the-numbers, non-apology. “I did a shit job, but I’m alright, pension’s in the bag, so screw you, I’m off.” Lock her up for a while, give her some time to reflect, grow a beard, whatever. I’ve watched most of this inquiry, this ghastly woman has been by some measure the worst offender, the colluder-in-chief by her own non-admission. Her husband was an equally slippery customer when in government.

[@PaulDuckett]

Nicely put. I live in Australia now and here they say 'yeah-nah' which I think applies to these apologies. Are you sorry? Yeah ..... nahhh. p

[@marybusch6182]

She can join a convent that has silence and poverty.

[@PaulDuckett]

hahaha - I like your style :) p

[@chris-vn6sw]

They seem to “Apologise” once accountable 🤔

[@PaulDuckett]

Yes, good point! p

[@lynnedwards1727]

Perkins: indulgent deflection and passive-agressive denial; that's what is evident.

[@PaulDuckett]

Ohhh, that's a good way of putting it. Nice work. p

[@lynnedwards1727]

@@PaulDuckett oh, ta! Self evident to me, it seemed, but one can be howled down😊

[@pittarak1]

Australian here: Mate, you're doing a great job. Keep it up, don't let the bastards win.

[@PaulDuckett]

Awwwww, thanks mate :) p

[@astronautist4716]

It's so past pitchfork time it really is. How much longer are we going to sit idly while they smugly lie caring not 1 iota for the misery & suffering they've caused? If the System offers the people no justice then what are we to do? Keep wringing our hands & posting angry comments?

[@PaulDuckett]

Yep, maybe time for us to dust off teh pitch forks. It's be while since we've put them to use! p

[@kennethsimmons2029]

Is she sorry for the loss of Jill Dando and did she ever work for husbands constituency office closer to Co Op HQ than Barry George to Gowan Avenue ?

[@PaulDuckett]

These are really intersesting questions. Thanks for posting them :) p

[@kennethsimmons2029]

You are welcome.😢. The families of Jill Dando and Barry George deserve to know the truth and any rewards for silence. Maybe a postman to home sec and aunt Alice to boardroom with a mutual friend in Strawman aligned with 4 legal aid refusals for victim 1

[@kennethsimmons2029]

Not forgetting of course the accolade for Lord Blunkett hosting event 1 and taking a counterintuitive position on behalf of wronged constituents by threat of legal action against whistleblower, He aint no James Arbuthnot is he ?