Post office / Horizon inquiry

She's crying because she's been caught and is now facing the comeuppance.

It's a shame it's not going to go further, prosecution is required. She's part of a criminal gang.
This annoys me so much.

This is a show trial, she'll have been told just shed a few tears and the news cycle will move on and forget you.

This kind of pond life fail upwards from birth. Absolute and utter scum.
 
She's crying because she's been caught and is now facing the comeuppance.

It's a shame it's not going to go further, prosecution is required. She's part of a criminal gang.

I think it’s a little bit more than that.
She has been told to cry.
It will be used by govt ministers to say ‘she has shown’ remorse.
There will be no consequences.

‘Twas ever thus

Democracy my asre
 
Unfortunately its not a criminal offence to lie to a parliamentary committee. However I think she should be jailed she deliberately persisted with subterfuge knowing for a long time these people were innocent long before their court trials.
Depends whether she made the statement under oath, in which case she's guilty of perjury.
 
I turned Sky news on 2 minutes ago and have already heard "don't recall" and "no recollection". Good job I can't play any drinking games today (chemo at 1) as I'd be p!ssed by 11am....evil lying cow!!
 
I turned Sky news on 2 minutes ago and have already heard "don't recall" and "no recollection". Good job I can't play any drinking games today (chemo at 1) as I'd be p!ssed by 11am....evil lying cow!!
Hope your Chemo goes well Legz
 
I came across this and it seems " It is a contempt of Parliament to lie in evidence to a committee " regardless if you are under oath, although its usual to be under oath but if you were then it would be perjury

Parliament has the power to jail someone for contempt .

The parliamentary bible, Erskine May, makes it clear that witnesses who "give false evidence, prevaricate, present forged or falsified documents... or attempt in any way to deceive a committee... may be reported to the House and dealt with as determined". But the precedents for such action are ancient indeed - the latest example cited is 1946-7 and another dates back to 1897. And it's really not clear how the Commons would deal with the situation were a liar to be unmasked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15659430
 
Vennells was warned by the Chair before speaking that she had a right not to incriminate herself in her answers.

So I think there is a very real chance of charges being brought. Starmer may well push for this. It is very much in his area of expertise and interest. Remember, he prosecuted some MP's over the expenses scandal and even a Cabinet Minister for perverting the course of justice. Not only that but his legal career was very much inspired by fighting these kinds of injustices by those in power against the little man.

I notice Jane MacLeod, the Post Office General Counsel (senior internal lawyer) for 2015-2019 has refused to co-operate and now lives abroad so cannot be compelled to attend. She was originally listed. Is that a coincidence or is there some legal jeopardy for her too?
 
Vennells was warned by the Chair before speaking that she had a right not to incriminate herself in her answers.

So I think there is a very real chance of charges being brought. Starmer may well push for this. It is very much in his area of expertise and interest. Remember, he prosecuted some MP's over the expenses scandal and even a Cabinet Minister for perverting the course of justice. Not only that but his legal career was very much inspired by fighting these kinds of injustices by those in power against the little man.

I notice Jane MacLeod, the Post Office General Counsel (senior internal lawyer) for 2015-2019 has refused to co-operate and now lives abroad so cannot be compelled to attend. She was originally listed. Is that a coincidence or is there some legal jeopardy for her too?
He says this to every witness in the enquiry not sure this is indicative of charges to be brought, although they have essentially caught her in perjury to the select committee and a few other lies over the first day and a half of her testimony here so fingers crossed it does.
 
He says this to every witness in the enquiry not sure this is indicative of charges to be brought, although they have essentially caught her in perjury to the select committee and a few other lies over the first day and a half of her testimony here so fingers crossed it does.
Is that the case though. The major bit yesterday when she admitted giving wrong information she said words to the effect that the Post Office knew the information was incorrect but she didn't.
 
Is that the case though. The major bit yesterday when she admitted giving wrong information she said words to the effect that the Post Office knew the information was incorrect but she didn't.
That was her words but materially she admitted that the information given was incorrect, based on the evidence in this enquiry I think it could be proven that she did know as there is written evidence that she did (although she denies this or tries to downplay its significance). KC Beer is doing a fantastic job of cutting through the many lies and "anomalies" (pardon the pun) in her witness statement, based on the evidence and the admission I think there could be enough to proceed with criminal case, at the very least a civil one where the burden of proof is lower.
 
Vennels: my good god. I’ve just spent the week watching this ‘woman’ talk through her ‘story’
What an odd person she is. Deceitful and deflecting constantly.
She is a perfect example of the establishment in this country and nothing short of vile/evil.

She must be brought to justice ASAP AND JAILED
 
Back
Top