Before the inquiry broke for lunch, Beer continued his questioning into Second Sight, the independent forensic accountants that played a key role in exposing the scandal by finding flaws in the Horizon computer system.

Beer asked Williams whether there was "no overarching strategy in the Post Office's response to the initial Second Sight investigation."

Williams said he was not aware of one.

Beer pressed him on this, asking whether he doesn't remember instructions that the approach shouldn't be "adversarial" or that "we should try to be as open as possible to let the truth filter out".

Williams says again he doesn't remember any such instructions.

The inquiry is taking a break for lunch until 14:00 BST.

Stay with us as we catch you up with a few more things that we heard from Rodric Williams before the break.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

Beer asks Williams whether he acted "appropriately" at all times in his dealing with the media in relation to sub-postmasters' complaints about Horizon.

Williams says he tried to but there was a possibility he didn't because "all times" is "quite a long time".

"I like to think I always had respect for them because they were... dogged and determined".

Beer asked aside from that, if he ever thought "they might be right?"

Williams responded "yes".

Beer asks: "Did you ever express that openly?"

Williams said the Post Office was doing so in its "actions", pointing to the mediation scheme, which he said was a genuine attempt to get to the truth as far as he was concerned.

The inquiry continues with McCormack, and skips to a letter from July 2016 in which he urges justice, this time for Seema Misra, and highlights problems with Horizon.

Again, in the evidence shown, Williams takes issue with the tone of the letter in his response and says he is not inclined to reply, then says they might as well send a short response asking for his evidence - and so he cannot say the Post Office ignored correspondence about Horizon issues.

Again McCormack is then told they would consider information he might disclose but not comment on the matter.

Beer then asks why Williams was writing these responses back to McCormack "which all shut down what he was saying and didn't say we will investigate the concerns"?

Williams says that he would like to see other emails - because McCormack didn't present any of the information that he said he had - and says he was trying to draw the correspondence to an end or to a point where it could be taken further as, according to Williams, McCormack wasn't presenting information or evidence of what he was talking about.

"Did you think he was he a mischief maker," Beer asks.

Williams says no, that he thought McCormack was a genuinely concerned individual and motivated to raise issues with them, but saying the challenge for the PO was it "wasn't quite sure what the issues were".

The inquiry is presented with an email from campaigner Tim McCormack to Paula Vennells - chief executive of the Post Office between 2012 and 2019 - about the bug in the Horizon system.

McCormack writes that it’s the last chance for Vennells to accept what he's been telling her – there is evidence of the bug in Horizon.

The money doesn’t exist, he says in the email, adding the error could be the reason for many of the Justice For Sub-postmasters Alliance (JFSA) cases.

McCormack asks her to travel to the branch in question and see for herself.

McCormack continues that he wants to “appeal to your sense of decency and compassion” and accept that many of the claimants in the JFSA saga are honest.

If she ignores the email she will be exposed and possibly be open to criminal charges, McCormack adds.

The inquiry sees emails in which the execs discuss how to respond to this.

Williams then emails a reply saying that McCormack is a "bluffer" who expects the board to march to his tune. Williams says they should respond with a “straight bat”.

Counsel to the inquiry asks Williams if by this time he was aware of the bugs.

Williams replies that he was.

He's asked what he meant by a straight bat - Williams says it means "appropriately."

The inquiry continues to discuss the known error logs, or 'KELs'.

Beer says to Williams it appears the Post Office's suggested approach from its lawyers - "either from you or communicated through you" - is that "we shouldn't look at documents that might contain adverse material, because we might have to disclose them".

"Instead lets wait until the litigation is over and our duties of disclosure have ceased to arise?" Beer asks.

Williams later says: "I'm saying it's a way to mitigate the risk".

Beer questions this, exclaiming: "Risk of what?"

Williams goes on to say: "Once the litigation concluded, we didn't have a duty to disclose..."

Beer moves forward now to 2019. He says this was when the Post Office had to conduct a Horizon issues trial, which was concerned with whether there were known issues in Horizon without disclosing known error logs.

Beer asks about Williams' approach to disclosure generally, asking whether it is usual that unless the other side asked for a document, there would be "no need to review your own material to see whether it meets the test for disclosure".

Williams gets flustered and says no that isn't his approach.

Beer asks whether it was his approach that in relation to 14,000 known error logs, "a relevant consideration was whether the claimant had asked for them or not".

Williams says it would depend on what the PO "wanted to do with them".

Beer then asks Williams: "Can you discharge that duty without looking at them?"

Williams says he suspects "it would be difficult to".

The inquiry continues to talk about why the Post Office was deliberately supressing documents it felt would harm its defence.

The inquiry is shown an email which was sent to Williams which suggests supressing certain documents about the PO’s investigating guidelines. This email suggested doing so in a way which looked legitimate to the outside world.

There is no record of Williams replying to it saying that was the wrong thing to do.

Williams tells in the inquiry he has no recollection of this email, and says this was inconsistent with his dealings on this matter.

At this point inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams interjects.

“This email should have had a prompt response from you to the effect of ‘you can’t possibly do that’" he tells Williams.

Williams replies that he was dealing with another issue at the time which was very urgent.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

The inquiry is talking about an email to Williams from solicitor Amy Prime in 2016 - and a request by Freeths, the firm that represented some sub-postmasters, for the Post Office's Investigations Guidelines since 1998.

Amy Prime says in the email to Williams "we'll do what we can to avoid disclosure of these guidelines" but that in doing so, "we are ultimately withholding a key document and this may attract some criticism from Freeths".

The inquiry asks Williams about the email from Amy Prime and he says he has "no recollection" of it "which is regrettable" and that he does not recall reading it at the time.

Williams confirms to the inquiry that he did not respond to the email.

"Disclosure was quite a big issue," Williams says.

Theo Leggett
BBC International Business Correspondent

Rodric Williams appears very nervous under questioning today from the Inquiry KC Jason Beer, frequently hesitating, stumbling over answers and occasionally giving a jittery giggle.

He has been questioned on his role within the organisation; whether he felt he had himself done anything wrong at any point, and what his role was in developing the Post Office’s media strategy.

So far, he has given an apology: "If I have caused anyone harm, I’m deeply sorry."

But he was called out by Beer over whether he had actually admitted any wrongdoing.

A series of questions focused on his attitude towards the sub-postmasters, as Beer highlighted internal emails focusing on questions from the media, in which he appeared highly dismissive of their concerns.

He was asked repeatedly whether his view was that if sub-postmasters didn’t like the Horizon system, they could just leave.

In response, he argued that his view at the time was that Horizon was being widely used, and there was a relatively small number of complaints. But he admitted to writing a poorly worded email.

He has also been taken to task over his role in developing responses to queries from the BBC, including questioning the broadcaster’s approach and impartiality. He denied treating a BBC documentary of the issue as “a joke".

As the inquiry resumes after a short break we're still looking at the Post Office's response to a BBC request and at an exchange of emails that states Nick Wallis' views threatened BBC impartiality.

Beer asks Williams whether he held those views. He says he did not.

Beer then asks whether there was a "bunker mentality" at the Post Office toward Horizon and the media's treatment of it?

Williams says he can't speak to how executives were responding but that "it did feel a bit like bunker mentality from where I was sitting", Williams says.

Beer then asks whether he was in the bunker, to which Williams says yes.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

The inquiry is shown an email from one of Williams' colleagues Mel Corfield.

The email is to a journalist at the Shropshire Star, and it says that "the overwhelming evidence" is that "the computer system was not responsible for the missing money in these Post Office branches".

Williams had replied to that email to say he was not comfortable about this sentence.

Beer presses him on why he was not comfortable using that sentence.

Williams replies that the use of the word "overwhelming" has a very high bar and is not exact and statements should not be made that cannot be corroborated and defended.

Beer continues - would it be simpler to say it just was not true?

Williams replies, stumbling over his words: "I don't know that it wasn't true".

He says it was "capable of different interpretations... it was a media line".

Image source, Post Office inquiry

Williams is asked by the inquiry if there was a view within the Post Office that it was "being got at" by sub-postmasters and the media.

He responds: "Maybe not by postmasters. But I think it is probably fair to say we were feeling a little bit got at by the media".

The inquiry is now looking at an email from Jane French, who was then a BBC current affairs editor, on 7 January 2015 about an upcoming Inside Out programme.

In the email, she invites Mark Davies, then-communications director, for a filmed interview that would feature in the programme, setting out a summary of the issues the programme would cover and a series of questions.

Another document on screen shows that French's email was forwarded to Williams.

In his reply, he says he "smells a rat" given the "BBC's approach to date, the close engagement it has with JFSA (Justice For Sub-postmasters Alliance), and the timing of the piece".

Jason Beer KC asks "what was the rat that you smelled"?

He says by this he meant it looks like its organised, that he thought "something is up" and that the timing was aligned to put pressure on the Post Office.

What were you intending to say, Beer asks, and Williams says the timing seemed convenient for PO complainants.

Then another tense back and forth between Beer and Williams.

"What did you think the BBC was up to?" Beer asks finally.

"It looked like it was building up to a media broadcast, something along those lines, that would have advanced the postmasters complaints," Williams says.

Peter Ruddick
Business reporter

Across two days of testimony from Rodric Williams, we are likely to get a lot of detail. But we are starting with something more general than that: tone.

Inquiry lawyer Jason Beer KC questioned why in more than 130 pages of witness statement there was nothing more than general "regret" to sub-postmasters. Why there was so little reflection on personal mistakes Williams may, or may not, have made.

We have also just been shown some fairly painful emails. They appear to show a lack of respect within the Post Office towards the issues sub-postmasters were facing as late as 2014.

Why does a focus on tone matter?

Because Williams and the person he was exchanging emails with are still at the organisation. Some sub-postmasters claim the Post Office still needs to change. The inquiry seems to be testing that point of view.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

The inquiry is looking at an email from Patrick Bourke from 2014, when he was government affairs and policy director.

In the email he's discussing the media request from journalist Nick Wallis about potential issues with the Horizon system. Bourke describes the request as "clutching at straws".

Beer asks Williams if he would agree that Bourke was expressing the same sentiments as him, and whether he treated the request as a joke. "No, far from it," says Williams.

Beer asks why he exchanged the emails. Williams says sometimes when you look back at emails years later you "regret" them.

"Are we to put this in the banter category," asks Beer.

"I would say yes," replies Williams.

Counsel for the inquiry, Jason Beer, is asking Rodric Williams questions about an email request from investigate journalist Nick Wallis, who has been working on uncovering the details of the scandal since it started.

The email asks about how sub-postmasters have been experiencing the Horizon system and if they were happy with it - and it asks for evidence of that.

Williams tells the inquiry that only a small proportion of sub-postmasters were complaining about Horizon.

At this point he gets a little flustered.

"It was being used successfully the vast majority of the network every day" he adds.

The inquiry is then shown an email written by Williams, in response to journalist Wallis's questions, in which Williams says Wallis’s request for data was “puerile”.

Counsel to the inquiry grills him about this.

"Looking at it today it doesn’t feel puerile," Williams concedes.

"I think that may just be a very poorly worded email."

Counsel for the inquiry reminds Williams that Wallis was asking for data to back up the Post Office claims that most sub-postmasters didn't have a problem with Horizon.

The inquiry is still looking at an email sent to the Post Office media team from journalist Nick Wallis.

There is specific reference to Williams' use of the word "whims" in an email in relation to complaints about Horizon.

Jason Beer KC: "Did you think sub-postmasters were on eccentric flights of fantasy?"

Rodric Williams: "No."

Jason Beer KC: "Why did you use the word whim?"

Rodric Williams: "Because it struck me as being, possibly, very bespoke, very individualised requests for personal preference. I used the word whim and I think in doing that I was trying to trivialise the specific complaints being raised".

Image source, Post Office inquiry

The inquiry hears now that Williams told colleagues "we don't need to do research on Horizon", and if sub-postmasters do not like it "they can choose not to provide services for us".

Williams was asked about an email sent to the Post Office by journalist Nick Wallis in 2014.

In the email, Wallis asked when was the last time the Post Office did any research into how satisfied sub-postmasters were with Horizon.

In a response to colleagues,Williams said: "We don't need to do research on Horizon - it's the system we provide to our agents and require them to use. If agents don't like it, they can choose not to provide services for us.

"The vast majority of our agents and other users work with it just fine, and we're not required to bespoke our point of sale accounting system to the whims of each individual agent."

Image source, Post Office inquiry

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

The inquiry is now looking at an email sent to the Post Office's media team from journalist Nick Wallis in December 2014.

Mark Davies, then-communications director, forwarded it to a number of people including Roderic, saying the BBC was raising more questions.

Williams replies to the email saying "this is getting ridiculous, we're being asked to address an ever expanding range of serious issues, on a piecemeal basis"

In a further reply, an hour and a half later, Williams replies in detail with a full suggested response to Wallis' questions.

Wallis was asking when the PO last did research into how "satisfied" the sub-postmasters were with Horizon, to which Williams suggested answering that the PO "constantly receives feedback on Horizon from its tens and thousands of users through a variety of sources".

He also listed the sources, such as the Branch User Forum and the Horizon Service Desk, adding that feedback was implemented through "regular system reviews and upgrades".