Hmm. And…?

I love the above screengrab. It shows a visibly bored Alice Perkins listening to (and intermittently dismissing) the questions of Chris Jacobs, a barrister representing more than a hundred Subpostmasters at the Inquiry yesterday.

Whilst Perkins was respectful to Jason Beer KC (process) and helpful to Sir Wyn Williams (authority), when it came to the representatives of Subpostmasters and, by extension, the Subpostmasters themselves (little people), she could barely hide her disdain.

To be fair the questions from the Subpostmaster representatives were not great. Jacobs went for a scattergun approach and Ed Henry tried (again) to make connections which, didn’t, on the face of it, seem to be there.

Angela Patrick, Jo Hamilton’s barrister, was good, focusing on the Post Office’s culture of loathing towards Subpostmasters and anyone who dare give them an opportunity in the media. More on that here.

Perkins’ Lofty Perch

What infuriated me about Perkins’ perspective was her utter failure to see what was staring her in the face throughout her tenure.

The JFSA, Subpostmasters, journalists, Simon Clarke, Second Sight and a significant cohort of MPs were telling the Post Office something had gone seriously wrong. They had the evidence. It was in plain sight.

Yet when Jacobs told Perkins there were “red flags” all over the place, she cut in to tell him they weren’t red flags, but “clues”. Clues? Like there was some kind of mystery which needed solving, requiring expensive barristers and consultant to gently steer her away from the inconvenient truth?

How incompetent or withdrawn from reality do you have to be to see what Second Sight were waving around in front of the Post Office’s faces as clues?

The only people Perkins and Vennells could take succour from were people on their payroll. And even some of those – Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Second Sight (and to a limited extent, Simon Clarke) were trying to draw attention to something catastrophic happening under their noses, on their watch.

I don’t buy Perkins’ “I took some big steps to try and deal with this issue” line. Every single step was framed and reframed by the culture of denial and fervent corporate wish for the whole chuffing thing to go away.

No one at the Post Office, in the several weeks of evidence we have just heard, once seemed to turn to another exec and say “what it Second Sight are right?”, “What if the MPs are right?”, “What if Alan Bates is right?”

All the evidence was there. All of it.

More from Aldwych House

I have written up two elements of yesterday’s evidence to the inquiry. The first covers the line which most media outlets have understandably gone for, featuring a govt presentation on Vennells’ uselessness. It’s called:

The taxi for Paula Vennells which never quite came

The second covers the behaviour of the Post Office’s “PR Guy” (in Jason Beer’s deathless phrase) and just how poisonous he might have been. It’s called:

More dispatches from the Post Office bunker: the PR guy goes Tonto

It is a companion piece to earlier posts called: Led by the (brown) nose and Dispatches from the Bunker, but this one has a lot more context, I hope.

There are plenty more versions of the story about the plan to sack Vennells here:

Government was looking to get rid of Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells – Sky News

Government weighed up sacking Paula Vennells in 2014 – BBC

Officials considered sacking Paula Vennells as Post Office boss in 2014 – Guardian

Ministers discussed plot to sack Paula Vennells as Post Office boss in 2014 – Times

Other lines:

Mystery Post Office software developer revealed in 1995 Horizon project document – Computer Weekly

‘Unethical’ tech leaders should be struck off like negligent doctors, industry body says – ITPro

Leader comment: Paula Vennells confronted – Church Times

Kafka 100: the Post Office scandal really was Kafkaesque – it’s right out of his novel The Trial on The Conversation

I called a chapter in my book The Trial as a nod to Kafka (and re-read his book for fun), but no one noticed. Or if they did, they didn’t tell me. To be fair, it isn’t exactly an unusual title for a chapter about a trial.

If anyone can tell me the Nick Cave reference in my last newsletter I’ll send you a banana. I’m currently reading Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea, which is cheering me up after watching what we’ve been witnessing at the Inquiry.

We now have four days off, so this will be my last newsletter for a bit. Back next week with Lord Grabs the Legal Big Dog. He was the chap who (along with Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, ffs) persuaded the Post Office board that Mr (now Lord) Justice Fraser was somehow biased and needed removing from the Bates v Post Office litigation. I was at that recusal hearing. You can read about it here.

Thanks

Thank you so much to everyone who has joined the mailing list over the last few days. It’s great to have you on board. Please keep spreading the word. I am committed to spending most of the rest of the next two months at the Inquiry, though I am going to miss a few odd days due to other commitments.

And if you live near Leeds, do come and see me and Janet Skinner at the Otley Courthouse on 22 November. I’m going to start mentioning it publicly soon and I am pretty sure it will sell out as it’s a tiny venue.

Have a great weekend.

Nick