Will Paula Venells ever be held accountable?

[Mouse]

According to Collins your (and his) usage is old-fashioned...but no less valid, IMO. Their current usage being "to try to avoid answering difficult questions".

His thought processes may indeed be tortuous but, to my mind, seem to be an attempt to cover all the bases. I think that is a good trait for a lawyer. Where he failed was in his appreciation of / support for the other side's needs...and I think that is something that is bred / trained into lawyers. Their duty is to best represent their client / employer rather than seek out any other detail...that being the purpose of the Court / Tribunal or other proceeding. Is this not usual in an adversarial justice system?

As a civil case lawyer he seems to have juggled the demands that POL put on him as regards criminal cases, pressure from the press, etc rather well...as far as his employer might be concerned. Their interest was not concerned with the well-being of their SPMs, as is all too apparent.

I am old yep, but not necessarily 'fashioned' lol

The inquiry process will be an incredibly stressful ordeal for the interviewees. Some are coping with it better than others. This guy, imo, is not handling it so well. Also, I just find his 'way' to be at odds with what I'd expect from a legal professional. Let us not forget that he occupied/s a very senior position at the PO (legal civil). I can easily imagine all of the inquiry lawyers I've seen performing such a role, but not R Williams. Anyway, we can agree to disagree on that.

Agreed, each side is going to do their utmost to win. That's fine, from a legal perspective if not a moral one, as long as all the formalities are followed correctly (disclosure for example).

Also, I think we agree? - all of what has happened seems indicative of very deep, systemic, failings (at numerous levels) on behalf of the PO, and wider RM group and indeed govt levels. It's a huge organisation and nothing is perfect, but whatever structures and ethos that have been put in place by chairs or directors is not as good as they thought it was.

There were/are some massive things to consider. The insolvency of the whole group/PO (I read that at one point there was even talk of selling the RM off to the Dutch!) and the need to maintain a public service. A computer system that had cost a lot of public money and yet was faulty. Seemed easier (cheaper?) to railroad prosecutions rather than seek the truth, admit that the system was flawed and be held accountable........I guess that stance worked for a while but unfortunately it has now all come back to bite the PO in the backside.

I know one thing. I'd hate to be the person responsible for compiling the findings for this inquiry. Presumably it'll be done by commitee as there is, imo, way too much for one person to assimilate.

[Jubal]

He didn’t present well as a witness to my eyes. Got tucked up by his own lawyer’s email in a bit I saw. He was so all over email generally it felt off that he was deadly silent on the one email that invited itself not to be replied to…

Another good example of him seeing all sides too. He at least has some awareness of how it looks! How it was IMO.