Post Office scandal: former CEO admits evidence was false 

exactly, she was even laughing it off.

🐊 😭

Truly the definition of "Crocodile Tears"

Yes, the tears are for herself. Not because of what she’s done to others.

Spot on crocodile tears

There won't be enough for the victims. More likely the taxpayer will have to pay some of the compensation.

All the money plus interest at the rate of inflation

@@RosePostedThis fine better than these monsters keeping their stolen money for their bonuses "for performance"

Both are an option. Aka *Weaponised Incompetence* Weaponized incompetence is a form of passive-aggressive behavior where an individual deliberately performs tasks poorly or pretends to be incapable of completing certain tasks. This manipulation tactic is often used to avoid responsibility, forcing others to take over and perform the task instead.

Either way she’s off to prison.

She was definitely in charge, she was both arrogant in her actions and corrupted by the power and the position that she felt she had at the time. She was not incompetent in anyway, that is what all powerful people want you to think and believe after they are caught as a way to instill some level of doubt about their guilt and their deliberate actions.. "I do not recall" or "I don't remember writing that" or "It was not my remit to deal with or know about such things" etc.

She's lying.

She did know

There is a very strong chance that will happen.

This is just the humiliation to give her something to think about while she is in jail. If she doesn’t go to jail the UK will go on strike. Society can’t take creatures like this endorsed with freedom.

It's so weird how rich criminals get to go back to their lovely homes - when they're literally a bigger flight risk.

Nobody will go to gaol they never do?

Maybe she suddenly realised that she was either evil or incompetent?

The tears were real enough. She knows what a catastrophe she was complicit in, and it's caught up with her. It must be genuinely upsetting.

Those tears are her realizing she committed perjury and is likely going to prison for it, not for anything that happened to people not named Paula Vennells

@@nickoforesta5788 Where did she commit perjury?

​@@ftumschkNarcissists cry when caught, realising how bad they look to others. She even had to stop herself making more excuses.

@@RosePostedThis I don't know that she is a narcissist. She may be, but without submitting her to a psychological examination and/or tests, I wouldn't like to say... and I speak as one with some degree of experience in the field of psychology.

Did he cry.

Lesson in robotics?

@@DSQueenieyes or pretended to cry on tv. Total scum bag

And Boris and keir starmer

@@mikeyacson9542 Of essentially our money.

You seem pretty sure of your ‘opinion’

Yeah, awful woman. No conscience. Narcissistic psychopath.

@@GibsonFender So you didn't watch any of the inquiry.

@@GibsonFender I’m pretty damn sure you have opinions.

couldn't agree with you more... she is still lying, which is actually desperate & sad.

And a member of the clergy to boot. Scandal after scandal in the political and corporate world coming out now, and in recent years. The ruling classes really are abhorrent towards the general public.

This is true evil. Continuing to lie, when she completely knows the pain and suffering she caused hundreds of innocent people, who were bankrupted, and lost their whole livelihoods, by her cruel, and evil actions. Thousands were affected, when you include the family members. Claiming to act out of compassion, she is an evil liar.

When this becomes obvious to these white collar criminals they will all blame each other rather than taking responsibility.

Incompetence or lying and misleading? What about slander, obstruction, obfuscation etc.. People's lives were deliberately destroyed in order to have public, financial and legal scapegoats. If you want justice, don't diminish this to a misbehaviour or incompetence - neither of which is illegal. Those texts were pretty clear.

@@niyanajima3517 lying, obstruction, obfiscation etc are all covered by "Misconduct in public office", which is the correct name for the offence. "The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification."

Incompetence isn't a crime.... but perverting the course of justice is.

@@martinlord5969 incompetence comes under "negligence" legislation. Negligence (legal definition) Any act or omission which falls short of the standard to be expected of the "reasonable person". For a claim in negligence to succeed, it is necessary to establish that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant, that the duty was breached, that the claimant's loss was caused by the breach of duty and that the loss fell within the scope of the defendant's duty and was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty. This is not a criminal law, but a civil tort.

Reminds me of the Hillsboriough disaster the police were responsible but the establishment protected corrupt top cops. Paula Vennells should serve time for what she did to those postmasters sending in her personal goon squad. Fujitsu are equally culpable in this disgusting episode.

She's a Religious Preacher total hypocrite that's all you need to know about Vennells. She needs prison time.

It's called "culpable ignorance".

@@philhart4849 Aka Weaponized incompetence. It is a form of passive-aggressive behavior where an individual deliberately performs tasks poorly or pretends to be incapable of completing certain tasks. This manipulation tactic is often used to avoid responsibility, forcing others to take over and perform the task instead.

I'm certainly glad you're not running the country...

​@@davidkavanagh189 she admitted to a crime.. thats an admission sono need for a trial really is there.

@@alastairwallace6153 There is no situation where you simply admit to a crime and then instantly go to jail. There is always and trial, and for good reason. You're just talking childish gibberish.

@@alastairwallace6153 I guess you were skiving off school on the day they taught "due process".

​@@davidkavanagh189well it works in Japan. The evidence against her is overwhelming.

Religion is there for sinners. The Church of England has certainly got MORE than its share.

typical church hypocrite then

@@woodenseagull1899haven’t seen any mass murders or other heinous act of violence undertaken by anyone in the name of the CofE

@@woodenseagull1899 shall we discuss the Catholic Church? How about the Jehovas Witnesses?... The Brethren?..... Scientology? Can't recall any major scandals or crimes by the C of E... Perhaps you could give some examples to support your claims?

all priests are liars. by definition.

KC Beer knows exactly what he is doing.

Will be interesting to see how she acts today after the overnight news reports calling out her crocodile tears

@@Rachel_M_ She has two options. Either cooperate with KC Beer, or continue to obfuscate, deny and lie.

@@user-on3wh6wu9n be interesting to see which path she chooses today.. I'm waiting for KC Edward Henry too. He doesn't pull his punches either.

@@user-on3wh6wu9n I hope you didn't play the "I don't recall" drinking game today.... If you did, do you want me to call you an ambulance?

It is the arrogance of thinking that the PO is right, it must be something in his private life that drove him to suicide. Appalling!!

"police just got free stamps with their own logo on them" :D

we not part of the us that get knighted for these sort of things

It will be the judges that will be the problem.!

Don't hold your breath

good luck with that, judiciary & po-lice are owned & operated by freemasonry

I hope!

Sadly, I doubt it... Fingers crossed though, hopefully this will ruin her.

Religion is a good cover for them.

Yep pure evil it's all the post office this and the post office that I suppose the the post office grew legs and arms and ran off with the money did it

That isn't what catatonic means

lair of liars, or maybe some mental ward for the deranged, she seems out of touch with reality.

False

"The Post Office had the law changed" has enough flaws in it to qualify as a high-rise. Silly post.

@@DaveATKIN Based on what info? This was a quote from a Radio 4 broadcast.

@@DaveATKIN “Computer says guilty” - an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly 30th September 2023 This is first in a series of posts on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions scandal * The Post Office prosecutions scandal is the United Kingdom’s greatest mass miscarriage of justice of our times. The scandal, however, is also difficult to write about. Partly this is because many of the personal and systemic failures in the scandal are so maddening that any attempt at objective explanation and detached commentary can quickly become a rant. And it is partly because the matter is so complex that very few will have mastery of all the legal and other documents and evidence. For example, the key 2019 judgment of Mr Justice Fraser - a judgment which also happens to be one of the greatest forensic exercises undertaken by any modern judge - is over a thousand paragraphs long, even without its appendices. Nonetheless, there have been some outstanding accounts and analyses of this sorry situation. In particular, the journalist Nick Wallis has produced a book which should be read widely on the mess. There is also now a statutory inquiry which is seeking to get to the bottom of what happened, and why it happened, and how it should not happen again. The focus of many of the accounts and much of the commentary has, rightly, been on the numerous personal and systemic failures - especially those of the Post Office management and their lawyers, and those of the software provider Fujitsu. Those personal and systemic failures are central to what happened: none of the miscarriages of justice would have occurred without decisions by individuals (and groups of individuals) which could and should have been made differently. And some of those decisions are such that the individuals involved should themselves be prosecuted. But this post - and the posts which will follow this, as part of a series - is on another failure which was part of the mix. This is the failure of the law itself and of the procedures of the courts. And if anything, this failure of the law itself and of the procedures of the courts makes the individual decision-makers more culpable - for they knew (or should have known) how harsh the applicable law and procedure would be on the defendants, but the defendants would be prosecuted anyway. Nothing in an account and explanation of the applicable law and procedure should be taken to limit the culpability of the Post Office management and their lawyers, and of those at the software provider Fujitsu. * In this first post let us start with what lawyers called a “presumption”. The classic statement of this presumption is as follows: “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”. Here “mechanical instruments” include computers. So, in other words, computers are presumed to be operating correctly, unless there is evidence to the contrary. As a “presumption” this does not mean that the court will take this view each and every time, regardless of circumstance. It is instead a starting-point which can be rebutted. It is what the court will take to be the state of affairs, unless it is satisfied by evidence that it is not the state of affairs. * There is nothing inherently wrong about a court using presumptions: indeed, without presumptions, the courts could not properly operate. Presumptions keep almost all legal cases manageable. For example, a contract will be presumed not to be a fraudulent instrument, unless it is shown to be a fake; or a defendant may be presumed not to be insane, unless shown to be insane; and so on. Presumptions tell us what will be taken to be the state of affairs - and which party has the onus of showing whether that state of affairs is not correct. The problems with any presumption are in what it presumes, and in what is needed to rebut it. If the presumption is unrealistic in and of itself, or if rebuttal is unrealistic, then the presumption converts from being something that assists the course of justice to something that causes miscarriages of justice. * The presumption that computers are presumed to be operating correctly, unless there is evidence to the contrary is what lawyers call “a presumption of evidence”. This means that a court can be satisfied that a relevant fact can be established just by computer records, unless there is evidence that the computer is not working properly. And so when the computer record shows, for instance, a financial shortfall by postmaster or postmistress, the court will accept that as evidence of an actual shortfall - unless the defendant can show that the computer was not operating correctly. In short, when the computer record is the essence of a prosecution case: computer says guilty. * This evidential presumption has not always been part of English law. In 1984 a law was passed which pointed this presumption in the opposite direction. Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provided: This provision pointed the presumption in the other direction: it was for the prosecution to show that the computer was operating correctly, and not for the defendant to show that computer was not operating correctly. This section 69 replaced the old common law position where, as stated above, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time. Had section 69 still been part of the law when the Post Office brought its prosecutions of post-masters and post-mistresses then the course of those cases may well have been different. Section 69, however, was repealed in 1999: