Richard. Thank you for your detailed picking-apart of this (and other) evidence. It makes fascinating reading at this stage, not least because when hearing Clarke in real-time my impression was much more slanted towards a verdict of “decent guy, some mistakes”.
That doesn’t stand up so well now.
Your analysis points me back to thinking that the foundation of this disaster was the original grant to the PO as a commercial entity the right to prosecute in the criminal courts for its commercial losses. (I am using a shorthand here)
The barristers and their instructing law firms have meal tickets at stake in advising their commercial client. They are very clever people who can justify and finesse their way to the pay cheques dangling before them while convincing everyone, including crucially themselves, that they are at least “in the clear” ethics-wise.
I see the “Clarke advice” and other good guy moments as moments when they know a third party looking-on later (and here we are doing that) could not countenance them doing anything else. After clearing themselves, as Clarke does with his two main “advices”, they soon go back to where their commercial bread is buttered.
Absolutely, Stuart. I know counsel to the Inquiry and counsel for the parties have different roles to play, but generally observing how they operate is like comparing Man City with Backstreet Rovers. Some of the representatives for the core participants should be made to go on a course with the peerless Jason. (Or perhaps with Richard??!)
This isn’t on point for this post, but just wanting somewhere to share my thoughts. Watching the Vennells evidence. She has a really strong detailed memory about things like the reform programmes and the contracts. So it really puts in stark relief the rest of it where she recollects practically nothing.
Richard. Thank you for your detailed picking-apart of this (and other) evidence. It makes fascinating reading at this stage, not least because when hearing Clarke in real-time my impression was much more slanted towards a verdict of “decent guy, some mistakes”.
That doesn’t stand up so well now.
Your analysis points me back to thinking that the foundation of this disaster was the original grant to the PO as a commercial entity the right to prosecute in the criminal courts for its commercial losses. (I am using a shorthand here)
The barristers and their instructing law firms have meal tickets at stake in advising their commercial client. They are very clever people who can justify and finesse their way to the pay cheques dangling before them while convincing everyone, including crucially themselves, that they are at least “in the clear” ethics-wise.
I see the “Clarke advice” and other good guy moments as moments when they know a third party looking-on later (and here we are doing that) could not countenance them doing anything else. After clearing themselves, as Clarke does with his two main “advices”, they soon go back to where their commercial bread is buttered.
Does anyone share my view that the attack-dog manner of some counsel’s questioning is counterproductive, if not demeaning?
Absolutely, Stuart. I know counsel to the Inquiry and counsel for the parties have different roles to play, but generally observing how they operate is like comparing Man City with Backstreet Rovers. Some of the representatives for the core participants should be made to go on a course with the peerless Jason. (Or perhaps with Richard??!)
It is that Clarke's motives are at best ambiguous, but the same could be said of any lawyer.
This isn’t on point for this post, but just wanting somewhere to share my thoughts. Watching the Vennells evidence. She has a really strong detailed memory about things like the reform programmes and the contracts. So it really puts in stark relief the rest of it where she recollects practically nothing.