And all the others, thanks.
"Vennells’s incentive payments add up to £2.2m over the course of her time in charge. She may note that when James Crosby, former boss of HBOS, gave up his knighthood in 2013 after a parliamentary committee found he “sowed the seeds” of destruction at the bank, he volunteered to surrender 30% of his pension entitlement. Those were the days before clawback clauses but Crosby was nodding to the principle that giving up a gong is not enough. In a post-clawback world, matters should be simpler: the rules are meant to insist on repayment of bonuses. If the relevant clauses aren’t triggered in Vennells’s case, when would they be?
“None of which is to deny that the rotten saga goes further than her. The politicians with oversight roles of the state-owned Post Office clearly have questions to answer, as do the relevant executives at Fujitsu, supplier of the dodgy IT software. But, among the business crew at the top of the Post Office over the years, the two chairs during Vennells’s time must explain why they backed the executives to the hilt.”
And whilst there at it why don’t they also strip Sir Phillip Green of his honours. You know, for stealing £400m of his employees pension money. Wait, why aren’t they doing that?
Weird, huh? It’s almost like power can protect itself.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Both the short-term incentive plan (STIP) and long-term (LTIP) at the Post Office clearly stated that there could be situations in which bonuses could be cancelled and individuals told to return cash.
Despite a report in 2012 from external reviewers that the Horizon IT system was “not fit for purpose”, the Post Office continued prosecutions until 2015 and then spent millions of pounds defending itself until the damning high court judgment in 2019.
She may note that when James Crosby, former boss of HBOS, gave up his knighthood in 2013 after a parliamentary committee found he “sowed the seeds” of destruction at the bank, he volunteered to surrender 30% of his pension entitlement.
The politicians with oversight roles of the state-owned Post Office clearly have questions to answer, as do the relevant executives at Fujitsu, supplier of the dodgy IT software.
But, among the business crew at the top of the Post Office over the years, the two chairs during Vennells’s time must explain why they backed the executives to the hilt.
But, if it’s really the case that the Post Office was left to do its own thing within the wider Royal Mail organisation, then the question is who was supposed to be accountable for the biggest IT project in Europe at the time?
The original article contains 643 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
