Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Tom8 said:
Do you think they have been advised to be so lacking in any empathy and sympathy? Almost all of them show nothing by way of feelings for what they were part of. Is that because offering sympathy would show a sense of guilt to the audience? Not sure this is a strategy I would take. They are all such awful people.
I did like the barrister haranguing her for automaton and post office corporate speak.
The “corporate speak” wasn’t, I don’t think, all an attempt to deflect or obfuscate; I think she’s an exemplar of a hopeless culture in which delivering “a change programme” is far more important than taking control and ownership and delivering actual change. For instance, when quizzed about supporting SPMs, she kept going on about the initiatives she’d implemented. When asked about specific help for SPMs, she seemed genuinely puzzled why nobody rated her for ensuring the provision of greater 2nd line support staff.I did like the barrister haranguing her for automaton and post office corporate speak.
After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
732NM said:
Tom8 said:
Do you think they have been advised to be so lacking in any empathy and sympathy? Almost all of them show nothing by way of feelings for what they were part of. Is that because offering sympathy would show a sense of guilt to the audience? Not sure this is a strategy I would take. They are all such awful people.
I did like the barrister haranguing her for automaton and post office corporate speak.
They are a bunch of psychopaths, they have no ability to care about people. This type of personality rises to the top of large organisations, we see it regularly in corporate fraud cases and where large scale ponzi schemes are uncovered. I did like the barrister haranguing her for automaton and post office corporate speak.
POL has to be shut down, it's still infested with these people and their culture.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
732NM said:
Tom8 said:
Do you think they have been advised to be so lacking in any empathy and sympathy? Almost all of them show nothing by way of feelings for what they were part of. Is that because offering sympathy would show a sense of guilt to the audience? Not sure this is a strategy I would take. They are all such awful people.
I did like the barrister haranguing her for automaton and post office corporate speak.
They are a bunch of psychopaths, they have no ability to care about people. This type of personality rises to the top of large organisations, we see it regularly in corporate fraud cases and where large scale ponzi schemes are uncovered. I did like the barrister haranguing her for automaton and post office corporate speak.
POL has to be shut down, it's still infested with these people and their culture.
Yet, throughout her eyes were dead, her lips pursed and her brow fixed.
It was gruesomely fascinating to watch.
Compelling stuff.
skwdenyer said:
The “corporate speak” wasn’t, I don’t think, all an attempt to deflect or obfuscate; I think she’s an exemplar of a hopeless culture in which delivering “a change programme” is far more important than taking control and ownership and delivering actual change. For instance, when quizzed about supporting SPMs, she kept going on about the initiatives she’d implemented. When asked about specific help for SPMs, she seemed genuinely puzzled why nobody rated her for ensuring the provision of greater 2nd line support staff.
After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
Excellent post. After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
These corporate automatons are all the same and they all talk in the same banal way. It makes no difference what the industry or business is, they are just plug and play interchangeable. For example, the system keeps crashing so we need to address that "challenge". No. A challenge is running a marathon, or climbing a mountain. This is a problem and an effing big one which we need to fix. You don't fix "challenges". Calling it a challenge is just deceit and that's the way these people are wired.
A wise man once told me that the art of the senior manager is to acquire remuneration on the basis that the buck stops here but to ensure in reality it stops somewhere else. We're seeing that proven everyday in this inquiry
Edited by siremoon on Saturday 27th April 08:06
siremoon said:
Blib said:
How many answers did she begin with the word 'So'?
The current fad of doing that really winds me up. Starting every answer with "so" should be an offence punishable by public flogging.siremoon said:
skwdenyer said:
The “corporate speak” wasn’t, I don’t think, all an attempt to deflect or obfuscate; I think she’s an exemplar of a hopeless culture in which delivering “a change programme” is far more important than taking control and ownership and delivering actual change. For instance, when quizzed about supporting SPMs, she kept going on about the initiatives she’d implemented. When asked about specific help for SPMs, she seemed genuinely puzzled why nobody rated her for ensuring the provision of greater 2nd line support staff.
After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
Excellent post. After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
These corporate automatons are all the same and they all talk in the same banal way. It makes no difference what the industry or business is, they are just plug and play interchangeable. For example, the system keeps crashing so we need to address that "challenge". No. A challenge is running a marathon, or climbing a mountain. This is a problem and an effing big one which we need to fix. You don't fix "challenges". Calling it a challenge is just deceit and that's the way these people are wired.
A wise man once told me that the art of the senior manager is to acquire remuneration on the basis that the buck stops here but to ensure in reality it stops somewhere else. We're seeing that proven everyday in this inquiry
Edited by siremoon on Saturday 27th April 08:06
t from people who see only 'The Plan'.RATATTAK said:
siremoon said:
Blib said:
How many answers did she begin with the word 'So'?
The current fad of doing that really winds me up. Starting every answer with "so" should be an offence punishable by public flogging.skwdenyer said:
The “corporate speak” wasn’t, I don’t think, all an attempt to deflect or obfuscate; I think she’s an exemplar of a hopeless culture in which delivering “a change programme” is far more important than taking control and ownership and delivering actual change. For instance, when quizzed about supporting SPMs, she kept going on about the initiatives she’d implemented. When asked about specific help for SPMs, she seemed genuinely puzzled why nobody rated her for ensuring the provision of greater 2nd line support staff.
After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
I went to a NHS Trust's CEO's leaving do with my wife...........said CEO approached me and asked what dept I worked in and I informed her that I didn't work with the NHS but was with my wife who she knew.........my wife then piped up and told her I would "probably sack 50% of the senior staf if I worked there".........just the man we need but unfortunatly not one I would have been able to hire" came the reply with a very nice, wry smile..............................I been self employed or owned my own company all my working life and never worked in a large Organisation like the PO or NHS etc but assume the hopeless culture and resistance to change is a common theme at senior levels in them.After enough years in an organisation like this, that is the life, the reality, and only those who embrace it get preferment.
When talking about the helpline scripts, she was clear that even though she was what you or I would imagine would be the responsible person, in reality her responsibility was for process and providing a system for others to feed in. There was not a single person who had holistic knowledge and proper control over both the operation of the helpdesk and its content.
As I’ve retold before, I was once interviewing for Project Managers and encountered a chap who was very particular - and proud - to tell me he wasn’t a PM; he was a PRINCE 2 practitioner. For him - and others - it wasn’t about delivering a project, it was about properly delivering a process. He didn’t get my vote!
That’s where accountability and control go to die. Everyone gets to say “I did my part properly” but nobody takes - or has - control and accountability for the whole.
It is a disease. And those who flourish within such a structure must by definition have little or no care for people or wider outcomes; their careers are defined only by their ability to operate the processes they inherited within a structure that makes no sense but is remarkably resistant to change.
Sorting it doesn’t require disbanding the PO. But it does mean hiring passionate responsible and accountable people who can cut through and recast the organisation as one that does things well and has morals, rather than one that is simply an agglomeration of functionaries intent on keeping their noses clean.
I really do hope that Vennels et al get a tatse of the medicine they served up to the SPM's but the lack of any "senior level" whistleblowers does surprise me given what has been clearly going on for many years and there must be many that don't have a clear consciences about all of this and their parts played or failures to act / come forward......... so I personally think it will end up a bit of a whitewash as most Govt Inquiries do including the 1 I played a small but siginifcant part in a few years ago.
ps CEO's leaving do was fancy dress party and I was dressed as Darth Vader at the time
:jesterEdited by LimmerickLad on Saturday 27th April 09:14
(The Lepton logs) These basic ARQ logs they spent time talking about the “reversal of a transaction” & whether they were ‘system generated’ or ‘user generated’, was not recorded. And this st was used in court as ‘proof’ - evidence in court - that the SPM had made changes. Only in underlying logs could it be ascertained what had made the reversal, which no one (SPM) knew about yet it was in a whole series of emails between AVDB and Helen Rose and others. And they browbeat SPMs into pleading guilty and all sorts.
AVDB seem to have an endless list of ‘when I was bright into that team’ / ‘I wasn’t part of the prosecutions’ / ‘that would have been Helens’s team that would action that…’ ‘not at this point in this email chain’ type non answers
That one where one SPM was being investigated and the amount owed still went up by another £60-odd quid overnight as if the SPM would still be stealing! fking morons
t was used in court as ‘proof’ - evidence in court - that the SPM had made changes. Only in underlying logs could it be ascertained what had made the reversal, which no one (SPM) knew about yet it was in a whole series of emails between AVDB and Helen Rose and others. And they browbeat SPMs into pleading guilty and all sorts. AVDB seem to have an endless list of ‘when I was bright into that team’ / ‘I wasn’t part of the prosecutions’ / ‘that would have been Helens’s team that would action that…’ ‘not at this point in this email chain’ type non answers
That one where one SPM was being investigated and the amount owed still went up by another £60-odd quid overnight as if the SPM would still be stealing! f
king moronsBoringvolvodriver said:
Indeed - he does have a lovely way of saying things which leaves one in little doubt as to what he is thinking.
The question remains as to what his final report and recommendations will be.
Can he recommend legal action against the PO or individuals?The question remains as to what his final report and recommendations will be.
Can he write that he didn't believe suchandsuch as a witness?
cookie1600 said:
Either the key people from POL were stupid, incompetent and had/have severe memory loss, or they were/are vindictive, uncaring, conniving and egocentric. I have my view, which I will keep private, but I don't see much else in between the two sets of options..
I will go for the second option, because I have encountered people like this. They can be phsycopathic in their readiness to be nasty and uncaring of others.This one needs to go to prison, because people took their own lives over this.
Blib said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
Indeed - he does have a lovely way of saying things which leaves one in little doubt as to what he is thinking.
The question remains as to what his final report and recommendations will be.
Can he recommend legal action against the PO or individuals?The question remains as to what his final report and recommendations will be.
Can he write that he didn't believe suchandsuch as a witness?
As for recommending legal action is brought, I doubt he would be so overt (avoids complaints about a biased judiciary and inability for an individual to receive a fair trial).
Corporately there are potentially routes though fraud and corporate governance failures, but fraud trials are unbelievably expensive and often fail (see the Tesco directors for an example) and so the remedies may be less that the PO itself is found “guilty” of anything, more that the rules around how it operates will be re-written.
The individuals involved will have had their reputations thoroughly tarnished so they’d better hope they have enough in the bank to see out their days.
I think the emails have been used by the lawyers at the inquiry to build a fairly clearly picture. One that, painted in a trial, would be a convincing picture that would indeed put it beyond reasonable doubt for a jury that there was deliberate obfuscation by POL and specific individuals there. Beyond a certain point it’s no longer credible to just keep saying ’I must have missed that email’
kestral said:
Millions and millions of pounds of tax payers money being wasted.
Nothing will happen to any of these people in the Post Office or Fujitsu. There, that's the abridge version.
Some things have already been change: Reputations have been trashed. Some of the PO Board will be uncomfortable leaving their homes. Paula Vennels, one of those people who thrives on hard work, will never work again, not even for any charity or trust or whatever. Nothing will happen to any of these people in the Post Office or Fujitsu. There, that's the abridge version.
Personal and /or family relationships will have been damaged. Nobody would want to admit to being a child or grandchild of the likes of Vennels or VDB. Who would want to be their friends?
On top of that I'm still of the mind that charges of perjury and PTCOJ must be brought.
The way the PO has been run will change, and we'll never see the like again.
And, the reputation of British justice has been trashed. I shall never want to hear again how British justice is somehow something to be held up as a good example; indeed, now more than ever we as people need to ensure UK remains a member of the likes of ECHR & ECHR, because we now have all the evidence we ever needed that we cannot trust our own system of justice. Possibly no citizen of any one country can.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff