Vennells tried to ‘manipulate language’ in non-emotive Horizon bugs request
Ms Vennells described her words as ‘wrong and stupid’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Paula Vennells has admitted attempting to “manipulate language” when she sought to make Horizon bugs sound “non-emotive”.
The former Post Office boss said she should “not have engaged” with the conversation, describing her words as “wrong and stupid”.
In an email from July 2013, which was previously shown to the inquiry, Ms Vennells said she did not want to use the word “bugs” when referencing the faulty Horizon system in an attempt to be “non-emotive”.
In the email to then-communications chief Mark Davies, Ms Vennells wrote: “My engineer/computer literate husband sent the following reply to the question: ‘What is a non-emotive word for computer bugs, glitches, defects that happen as a matter of course?
“Answer: Exception or anomaly. You can also say conditional Davies exception/anomaly which only manifests itself under unforeseen circumstances xx.”
Mr Davies replied: “I like exception v much.”
Inquiry counsel Julian Blake previously said the language was “absolutely Orwellian”.
On Thursday, counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asked: “Did you consider the terms ‘computer bug’ ‘computer glitch’ or ‘computer defect’ to be emotive?”
Ms Vennells replied: “I shouldn’t have engaged at all.”
Mr Beer interjected: “That’s an answer to a different question.”
Ms Vennells said: “No, I realise that but I realise, very clearly, that we should have said ‘bugs’.”
The former chief executive she was “not sure” why she had used the word non-emotive, but “fully accepted” it was wrong.
She told the probe: “I should have said bugs. I should not have sent the email.
“I should have said bugs and so should the rest of the organisation.”
Mr Beer continued: “Why did you ask your husband for non-emotive words for computer bugs?”
Ms Vennells replied: “Because we were looking to find a different word than bugs.”
Mr Beer pressed her: “Yes, but why?”
The ex-Post Office boss said: “Because as I’ve tried to explain, wrongly and stupidly… we were trying to keep the proportionality around two issues that had arisen that were not anything to do with the systemic impact on the system or the Second Sight interim report.”
Mr Beer then asked: “You were seeking to manipulate language here, weren’t you?”
Ms Vennells said: “Yes, we were seeking to use language that I thought described better the situation and avoided confusion and conflation with something that I viewed as completely separate.”
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.