Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Legend83 said:
Tom8 said:
Amazing you can be paid so much and know so little. As a CEO it is your duty to know exactly what is going on and why.
This is exactly the point right? As CEO she can't be expected to know all the "details" which she seems to be claiming she is being challenged on, but you have to be expected to know all the important and material issues and themes within the business, which is what Stein is actually challenging her on.She is/was either a) terrible at her job and no-one told her anything because they knew she was incompetent; b) too scary or intimidating for anyone to fess up to her what was actually going on; or c) as CEO knew everything and chose to hide it...
Occam's Razor anyone?
which fed right into
c - once it started coming out
Wondering if the management deliberately employed Vennells because they thought that when the s
t hit the fan, as they must have known it would, she'd be able to behave exactly like she has behaved. Which makes you wonder whether the folk who gave her the CEO's job should also be under scrutiny here.
t hit the fan, as they must have known it would, she'd be able to behave exactly like she has behaved. Which makes you wonder whether the folk who gave her the CEO's job should also be under scrutiny here. Legend83 said:
Tom8 said:
Amazing you can be paid so much and know so little. As a CEO it is your duty to know exactly what is going on and why.
This is exactly the point right? As CEO she can't be expected to know all the "details" which she seems to be claiming she is being challenged on, but you have to be expected to know all the important and material issues and themes within the business, which is what Stein is actually challenging her on.She is/was either a) terrible at her job and no-one told her anything because they knew she was incompetent; b) too scary or intimidating for anyone to fess up to her what was actually going on; or c) as CEO knew everything and chose to hide it...
Occam's Razor anyone?
dundarach said:
Legend83 said:
Tom8 said:
Amazing you can be paid so much and know so little. As a CEO it is your duty to know exactly what is going on and why.
This is exactly the point right? As CEO she can't be expected to know all the "details" which she seems to be claiming she is being challenged on, but you have to be expected to know all the important and material issues and themes within the business, which is what Stein is actually challenging her on.She is/was either a) terrible at her job and no-one told her anything because they knew she was incompetent; b) too scary or intimidating for anyone to fess up to her what was actually going on; or c) as CEO knew everything and chose to hide it...
Occam's Razor anyone?
which fed right into
c - once it started coming out
dundarach said:
Blackpuddin said:
OK let's charitably accept that, but her apparent ignorance of huge issues in her own company is either shocking or untrue.
That's how I read it, she's either stupid or lying, given her track record and ability to perform here under pressure, she's very clearly not stupid, so er...
I am still on yesterday afternoon although I am finding that I am screaming obscenities at the screen on a regular basis when it is clear that she is either incompetent or lying. Yet another PO person who didn’t mean what they write and that a different meaning should be applied!
Her ability to try and explain what she really thought with the benefit of hindsight is amazing - even though at times it is hard to cut through the waffle.
As someone else has said, I think she still believes that she has done nothing wrong, even when the evidence says otherwise. Mr Beer is rather good at drawing that out for all to see with some fantastic questions and one liners.
I know it has been mentioned but having seen it in context now “misunderstanding between you and the keyboard” was classic, especially has PV asked him to repeat it!
Her ability to try and explain what she really thought with the benefit of hindsight is amazing - even though at times it is hard to cut through the waffle.
As someone else has said, I think she still believes that she has done nothing wrong, even when the evidence says otherwise. Mr Beer is rather good at drawing that out for all to see with some fantastic questions and one liners.
I know it has been mentioned but having seen it in context now “misunderstanding between you and the keyboard” was classic, especially has PV asked him to repeat it!
Be interesting to hear what Alice Perkins has to say when she gives evidence later on,
I hope that Mr Beer can get to the bottom of how much she actually knew (or was told by PV) and why and how the decision not to have Susan Crichton present to the board a key paper regarding Gareth Jenkins flawed evidence was arrived at.
As Mr Beer asked “was the senior executive team hiding its dirty laundry from the board” or was it Alice Perkins who didn’t want it airing?
I hope that Mr Beer can get to the bottom of how much she actually knew (or was told by PV) and why and how the decision not to have Susan Crichton present to the board a key paper regarding Gareth Jenkins flawed evidence was arrived at.
As Mr Beer asked “was the senior executive team hiding its dirty laundry from the board” or was it Alice Perkins who didn’t want it airing?
Tagteam said:
dundarach said:
Legend83 said:
Tom8 said:
Amazing you can be paid so much and know so little. As a CEO it is your duty to know exactly what is going on and why.
This is exactly the point right? As CEO she can't be expected to know all the "details" which she seems to be claiming she is being challenged on, but you have to be expected to know all the important and material issues and themes within the business, which is what Stein is actually challenging her on.She is/was either a) terrible at her job and no-one told her anything because they knew she was incompetent; b) too scary or intimidating for anyone to fess up to her what was actually going on; or c) as CEO knew everything and chose to hide it...
Occam's Razor anyone?
which fed right into
c - once it started coming out
Vasco said:
I'm waiting for her to be asked what she actually did each day. So far, it always seems that others did everything (but never told her......) or she was clearly involved in meetings and papers circulated - but, amazingly, now can't recall anything about it.....
You forget about the important stuff, the conversations that were unwritten and 'mostly in corridors in between going to meetings'.....Boringvolvodriver said:
Be interesting to hear what Alice Perkins has to say when she gives evidence later on,
I hope that Mr Beer can get to the bottom of how much she actually knew (or was told by PV) and why and how the decision not to have Susan Crichton present to the board a key paper regarding Gareth Jenkins flawed evidence was arrived at.
As Mr Beer asked “was the senior executive team hiding its dirty laundry from the board” or was it Alice Perkins who didn’t want it airing?
My whole take on the debacle can be summed up thus "It was the truth that dare not speak its name". I hope that Mr Beer can get to the bottom of how much she actually knew (or was told by PV) and why and how the decision not to have Susan Crichton present to the board a key paper regarding Gareth Jenkins flawed evidence was arrived at.
As Mr Beer asked “was the senior executive team hiding its dirty laundry from the board” or was it Alice Perkins who didn’t want it airing?
They all knew, no one wanted to say it out loud so they created a fantasy and here we are.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff