British Post Office Scandal(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
British Post Office Scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
152 comments
Couldn't the parliament pass some generic law that could make the work easier? It's clear that many people are convicted on the basis of evidence coming from the same faulty source, yet the convictions need to be reviewed case-by-case. The goal could be to reduce this friction for similar scenarios, not just for the Horizon convictions.
Seems that's what they've done now
It happens to be even worse.
Because we have no way to detect all the cases.
A lot of the cases were handled in the "Post Office courts" (I don't remember the correct name, not a British), and there are more or less no records of them. So you need to ask people affected to come up and find ways to validate them, then create a case for quashing it. It is a total FUBAR mess.
Because we have no way to detect all the cases.
A lot of the cases were handled in the "Post Office courts" (I don't remember the correct name, not a British), and there are more or less no records of them. So you need to ask people affected to come up and find ways to validate them, then create a case for quashing it. It is a total FUBAR mess.
That's not true. They were handled by normal courts and of course there are records. The post office merely prosecuted the cases.
This explanation may be correct but happens to also fit the pattern of the BBC carrying, perhaps unintentionally, the water for the government.
The more important factoid is that, until the renewed outrage this week, no one in the current UK government was seriously pushing to fix anything whatsoever.
The more important factoid is that, until the renewed outrage this week, no one in the current UK government was seriously pushing to fix anything whatsoever.
One of the big problems with British politics at the moment is that lots of people seem to think that if the BBC is less willing to pretend there are easy solutions with no downsides the government is ignoring than other parts of the media this is seen as them being in the government's pocket. Which isn't the same as not willing at all, they pretty systematically focus only on the downsides of government policies already - one of the examples that made HN was the UK Covid app, where the BBC treated using Google and Apple's framework as obviously better right up until the point the government launched a new app that did, when they immediately switched and focused only on the advantages of the old app due to it not doing so. They just don't do this as consistently as some other outlets.
That is, the minimum standard they need to meet in order not to be perceived as carrying water for the government is not just lying and misleading the public in order to get the ruling party kicked out, but doing so as aggressively and shamelessly as the most aggressive and shameless of their competitors (which includes social media to some extent).
That is, the minimum standard they need to meet in order not to be perceived as carrying water for the government is not just lying and misleading the public in order to get the ruling party kicked out, but doing so as aggressively and shamelessly as the most aggressive and shameless of their competitors (which includes social media to some extent).
> s less willing to pretend there are easy solutions with no downsides the government is ignoring than other parts of the media this is seen as them being in the government's pocket
I really cannot parse all the double negatives in this. Is this an allegation relating to the BBC's ties with the ruling party? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/24/panel-approvin...
I really cannot parse all the double negatives in this. Is this an allegation relating to the BBC's ties with the ruling party? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/24/panel-approvin...
If there's any policy which people are calling for but which the government doesn't currently support - for example, passing a law that blanket overturns all of these convictions - it tends to get portrayed as an obvious win with no downsides by much of the British press. If there's something which is currently government policy or effectively so, like leaving this to the courts, we hear about only the downsides of that policy. The BBC does this too, but not quite to the same extent, and they get a lot of flack for it as in this case.
Actually, the government has just announced that they are going to pass such a law, and this helps further demonstrate what I mean. After they announced this, the Guardian ran an analysis piece pointing out all the same reasons why this is potentially a bad idea that the BBC talked about before: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/no-precedent... Their top headline article is also about this announcement and leads by pointing out the same problems: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/rishi-sunak-... The way in which the BBC is more pro-Tory than publications like the Guardian is that they're less likely to ignore these problems when talking about activists calling for this prior to it becoming government policy. That is, in order for a British media publication to be adequately anti-Tory in the eyes of the press, whether they treat a proposal as bad or good has to depend on whether it's coming from the Tories.
Actually, the government has just announced that they are going to pass such a law, and this helps further demonstrate what I mean. After they announced this, the Guardian ran an analysis piece pointing out all the same reasons why this is potentially a bad idea that the BBC talked about before: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/no-precedent... Their top headline article is also about this announcement and leads by pointing out the same problems: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/rishi-sunak-... The way in which the BBC is more pro-Tory than publications like the Guardian is that they're less likely to ignore these problems when talking about activists calling for this prior to it becoming government policy. That is, in order for a British media publication to be adequately anti-Tory in the eyes of the press, whether they treat a proposal as bad or good has to depend on whether it's coming from the Tories.
If the government could find a way to make it work for the homosexual activity convictions, I'm sure they can find a way for this miscarriage of justice as well. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/past-convictio...
[deleted]
That's a very good point.
I don't think that poses the same problems for judicial independence because the courts were correctly applying the law at the time - it's just that we've now decided that law was morally wrong - and of course it's always been Parliament's job to set the laws. However, in this case there's no dispute that defraudingg the Post Office out of large sums of money should be a crime, the problem is the courts' factual findings that lead them to rule that specific people had done so.
The difference being we decided that being gay shouldn't be a crime and never should have been.
Defrauding public institutions is quite a different kettle of fish. There will be people convicted who really did have their hands in the till.
Defrauding public institutions is quite a different kettle of fish. There will be people convicted who really did have their hands in the till.
> There will be people convicted who really did have their hands in the till.
Maybe, but if any of the evidence used to convict them came from the Horizon system, which has been proven to be flawed and unreliable, then IMO the verdict is still unsupportable. If there is any reason to suspect someone of actually having their hands in the till over the Horizon period, I would still be entirely in favour of requiring that they be immediately set free, and for prosecutors to have to bring an entirely new trial, from scratch. And any jail time resulting from new guilty verdicts to be reduced by time served from the original conviction.
Maybe, but if any of the evidence used to convict them came from the Horizon system, which has been proven to be flawed and unreliable, then IMO the verdict is still unsupportable. If there is any reason to suspect someone of actually having their hands in the till over the Horizon period, I would still be entirely in favour of requiring that they be immediately set free, and for prosecutors to have to bring an entirely new trial, from scratch. And any jail time resulting from new guilty verdicts to be reduced by time served from the original conviction.
Why does an appeal require government support?
There's no way reasonable doubt remains, what is the legal barrier that an appeal court is trying to deal with?
> But these would be largely symbolic acts because the government can't, at the stroke of a pen, quash a conviction
This is untrue. Judges may not like it but I don't really care. The parliament is legally soverign and the courts are subservient to interpret and apply the laws as written in the legislation. If they write a law that says these convictions mean nothing, then they mean nothing.
Common law constitutionalism is based on the fact that individual rights exist - not the right of a judiciary to have separate powers.
There's no way reasonable doubt remains, what is the legal barrier that an appeal court is trying to deal with?
> But these would be largely symbolic acts because the government can't, at the stroke of a pen, quash a conviction
This is untrue. Judges may not like it but I don't really care. The parliament is legally soverign and the courts are subservient to interpret and apply the laws as written in the legislation. If they write a law that says these convictions mean nothing, then they mean nothing.
Common law constitutionalism is based on the fact that individual rights exist - not the right of a judiciary to have separate powers.
Indeed, the quirk of the Westminster system is that parliament can indeed legislate whatever it likes. Parliament can pass a law that the colour orange is now legally the new black.
There is however one detail, what is passed must be internally consistent with other legislation otherwise it will fall at Judicial Review. For example if you want to pass legislation that contravenes the UK's Human Rights Act, you need to include a "notwithstanding" clause to show the courts you intended to override that law.
They could pass a bill to vacate these convictions quite easily but unlike the Buggery Act and Offences Against the Person Act 1828, they still want to be able to prosecute and protect the convictions of a subset of these people who actually did commit false accounting so the legislation is going to need to be more complex.
There is however one detail, what is passed must be internally consistent with other legislation otherwise it will fall at Judicial Review. For example if you want to pass legislation that contravenes the UK's Human Rights Act, you need to include a "notwithstanding" clause to show the courts you intended to override that law.
They could pass a bill to vacate these convictions quite easily but unlike the Buggery Act and Offences Against the Person Act 1828, they still want to be able to prosecute and protect the convictions of a subset of these people who actually did commit false accounting so the legislation is going to need to be more complex.
"There is however one detail, what is passed must be internally consistent with other legislation otherwise it will fall at Judicial Review."
Only certain legislation, and that is in doubt after the Act of Union with Ireland case.
Generally the rule of Implied Repeal applies. Later statutes trump earlier ones.
Only certain legislation, and that is in doubt after the Act of Union with Ireland case.
Generally the rule of Implied Repeal applies. Later statutes trump earlier ones.
>Parliament can pass a law that the colour orange is now legally the new black.
Or that Rwanda is a safe country for migrants?
Or that Rwanda is a safe country for migrants?
To clarify how this happened: in the UK anyone can bring a private prosecution where they effectively act as the prosecutor. This is usually used by charities who take on laws to prosecute (eg., crimes against animals).
Here the post office used the law to prosecute its own staff in alleged crimes against the post office. So they were both the prosecutor and the victim.
This gave them overwhelming incentives not to reveal all evidence to the defence, and indeed they hit many reports on these computer systems.
That is a crime; and I imagine senior staff at the post office should be themselves prosectued.
But the underlying issue is the gap in the law where private prosecution by companies is permitted even when they're the victims and when they hold all the evidence. This is the mechanism which created the insanity.
Here the post office used the law to prosecute its own staff in alleged crimes against the post office. So they were both the prosecutor and the victim.
This gave them overwhelming incentives not to reveal all evidence to the defence, and indeed they hit many reports on these computer systems.
That is a crime; and I imagine senior staff at the post office should be themselves prosectued.
But the underlying issue is the gap in the law where private prosecution by companies is permitted even when they're the victims and when they hold all the evidence. This is the mechanism which created the insanity.
Private prosecutions like this are specific to England & Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system where I believe they are extremely rare; Northern Ireland is also a separate legal system).
While the incentives are not to reveal evidence the law is absolutely clear that all evidence identified must be revealed. The difficulty is that forcing and unlimited discovery to identify the evidence would break the whole legal system, and this is what parties can hide behind (for a while at least). We'll have to see when and how anybody will face the consequences of any failures to reveal the evidence.
I very much recommend reading the Judgements in Bates vs Post Office. As litigation progressed you can notice how it becomes apparent to the judge how Post Office legal tactics and behaviour undermined the prosecutions.
While the incentives are not to reveal evidence the law is absolutely clear that all evidence identified must be revealed. The difficulty is that forcing and unlimited discovery to identify the evidence would break the whole legal system, and this is what parties can hide behind (for a while at least). We'll have to see when and how anybody will face the consequences of any failures to reveal the evidence.
I very much recommend reading the Judgements in Bates vs Post Office. As litigation progressed you can notice how it becomes apparent to the judge how Post Office legal tactics and behaviour undermined the prosecutions.
The Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
They do, but applications on these matters can easily overwhelm the financially weaker opponent. Interesting comment in one of the Post Office judgements:
"10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html
"10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html
In addition to the RSPCA example, banks/financial institutions bring a fair number of complex fraud prosecutions because it is in their financial interest to prosecute people who've defrauded them. But private prosecutions are indeed an anomaly and can lead to some weird outcomes.
A few years ago, someone brought a crowdfunded private prosecution of Boris Johnson for "misconduct in public office". The whole thing was incredibly silly and a massive waste of time. (MIPO isn't there for politicians lying/misleading people, though that does indeed suck.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_v_Johnson
Also, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the CPS decided to not prosecute for lack of evidence. The Lawrence family brought a private prosecution which failed. Jeopardy attached at that point.
Later evidence emerged which made the case a lot stronger, but had the Criminal Justice Act 2003 not been passed allowing limited exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, it would not have been possible to bring much stronger cases against the perpetrators.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence
The CPS have the power to take over and stop an ongoing private prosecution, but the ability to bring private prosecutions sits really uncomfortably with the principle of double jeopardy. Like, someone could do a bad job of bringing a prosecution in a case where the CJA2003 double jeopardy exception doesn't apply and then the person can't be retried by the CPS.
A few years ago, someone brought a crowdfunded private prosecution of Boris Johnson for "misconduct in public office". The whole thing was incredibly silly and a massive waste of time. (MIPO isn't there for politicians lying/misleading people, though that does indeed suck.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_v_Johnson
Also, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the CPS decided to not prosecute for lack of evidence. The Lawrence family brought a private prosecution which failed. Jeopardy attached at that point.
Later evidence emerged which made the case a lot stronger, but had the Criminal Justice Act 2003 not been passed allowing limited exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, it would not have been possible to bring much stronger cases against the perpetrators.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence
The CPS have the power to take over and stop an ongoing private prosecution, but the ability to bring private prosecutions sits really uncomfortably with the principle of double jeopardy. Like, someone could do a bad job of bringing a prosecution in a case where the CJA2003 double jeopardy exception doesn't apply and then the person can't be retried by the CPS.
> So they were both the prosecutor and the victim.
Not UK, but this is (usually, I think) the case with private prosecution. When the public prosecution decides not to prosecute, the options for the victim are either do nothing, or go the private prosecution way. In the latter case, the victim will be the prosecutor too.
Not UK, but this is (usually, I think) the case with private prosecution. When the public prosecution decides not to prosecute, the options for the victim are either do nothing, or go the private prosecution way. In the latter case, the victim will be the prosecutor too.
Private prosecutions are also common in the railways in England
There are also some parallels with one of the Government's train companies, Northern, who use similar scare tactics as the Post Office with threats of court action and some rail enthusiasts/experts have called their tactics "extortion" [0]
(Northern is directly owned and operated by the Government. So they may flap and act indignant about the Post Office, but that makes them hypocrites.)
[0] A thread on railway private prosecutions in light of the Post Office Scandal: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-railways-pow...
There are also some parallels with one of the Government's train companies, Northern, who use similar scare tactics as the Post Office with threats of court action and some rail enthusiasts/experts have called their tactics "extortion" [0]
(Northern is directly owned and operated by the Government. So they may flap and act indignant about the Post Office, but that makes them hypocrites.)
[0] A thread on railway private prosecutions in light of the Post Office Scandal: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-railways-pow...
I'm mostly with you on that one, but private prosecutors still have to get the case past a judge (and often a jury too), and convince them beyond reasonable doubt. In this particular case that clearly wasn't a sufficient safeguard, but in general, private prosecutions have their place.
this is what i don't understand
how did they get convicted with flimsy evidence?
why is no one in the post office or fujitsu (including the directors) being prosecuted
how did they get convicted with flimsy evidence?
why is no one in the post office or fujitsu (including the directors) being prosecuted
It's easily possible when the defense is given fabricated evidence, or evidence of innocence is withheld so that the trier of fact only has biased evidence on which to make their decision.
If anyone wants to see a good example of the enquiry questioning, here's an excerpt.
Software bugs ruin lives, but corruption allows it to happen.
People, normal people, small postmasters, killed themselves after being wrongly disgraced for financial fraud while the C-suite of the Post Office falsified their accounting to award themselves bonuses.
https://youtu.be/CQzrB3kuqck?si=8tE2DGhKdGXLFxsy
Software bugs ruin lives, but corruption allows it to happen.
People, normal people, small postmasters, killed themselves after being wrongly disgraced for financial fraud while the C-suite of the Post Office falsified their accounting to award themselves bonuses.
https://youtu.be/CQzrB3kuqck?si=8tE2DGhKdGXLFxsy
My wife was watching the ITV drama on this last night and I had to leave the room. It was making me so incredibly angry that such huge injustices can be allowed to take place. I recommend the show to anyone with better control of their emotions that me!
I was just reading the other day that some MP was calling for those who were affected to have their names cleared. It's fucking astounding that this hasn't been a priority until the recent TV series on it has come out.
This skandal is 6 years old. I find it hugely concerning that someone has to make a TV play that resonates with the public for politicians or anyone responsible really to show any interest in resolving this.
The current activities and proposals probably have to be seen as crowd management and might not be an honest attempt for a solution, again.
The current activities and proposals probably have to be seen as crowd management and might not be an honest attempt for a solution, again.
I understand this might look like complete b*llocks, but it seems they are not doing that because, despite the good aim in this specific case, would create a bad precedent.
The whole case, after so many years, is as ridiculous as it gets for a government scandal - I agree. At the same time, I kind of understand why this needs to be carefully thought as a legal manoeuvre.
The whole case, after so many years, is as ridiculous as it gets for a government scandal - I agree. At the same time, I kind of understand why this needs to be carefully thought as a legal manoeuvre.
Is this Mr Bates vs the Post Office? Worth watching? I am just finishing up the latest season of The Crown, and was looking for some other british docudrama to watch (sometimes it's nice to watch a show without a mandated sex scene, car chase, etc)
Yes, I would recommend it and I had previously read the "The Great Post Office Scandal" book (which I would also recommend).
Edit: My wife who is a pretty hard nosed commercial litigation lawyer was thoroughly shocked by it - so much so that she actually went off and read the court judgements to get more details.
Edit: My wife who is a pretty hard nosed commercial litigation lawyer was thoroughly shocked by it - so much so that she actually went off and read the court judgements to get more details.
Can wholeheartedly add my recommendation for the book. In fact I think it should be required reading for anyone in the business of software. While I felt it was a bit over-long it is incredibly thorough and well told and covers multiple different aspects of the scandal while making the human cost obvious in a way that aggregate facts and figures don't.
The other annoying thing about this is that it took an ITV drama to give this any attention.
All the mainstream press reported "MET opens investigation!" as if it was a new thing, and then in the article "the invitation was opened in 2020 and has interviewed 2 people". Great.
All the mainstream press reported "MET opens investigation!" as if it was a new thing, and then in the article "the invitation was opened in 2020 and has interviewed 2 people". Great.
Sounds horrible.
Link, if anyone is curious about the production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Bates_vs_The_Post_Office
Link, if anyone is curious about the production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Bates_vs_The_Post_Office
> Outside the UK?
> Due to our broadcast and content licences, you can only watch ITVX in the UK.
I really wanted to pay and see it. Oh, well, I'm going to be a pirate again...
> Due to our broadcast and content licences, you can only watch ITVX in the UK.
I really wanted to pay and see it. Oh, well, I'm going to be a pirate again...
[deleted]
It is horrible! You should really visit the Justice For Subpostmaster Alliance web site for the nitty-gritty https://www.jfsa.org.uk - there are some very interesting reports to view/download.
Is there any actual technical report of what's wrong with the Horizon system? This feels like a weirdly long Wikipedia article that only touches on legal points and that somewhat lacks in real substance.
I don't know of any actual technical reports but this is interesting, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post....
"One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for."
https://clarotesting.wordpress.com/tag/dalmellingto-bug/
"The Dalmellington Bug entailed a user repeatedly hitting a key when the system froze as she was trying to acknowledge receipt of a consignment of £8,000 in cash. Unknown to her each time she struck the key she accepted responsibility for a further £8,000. The bug created a discrepancy of £24,000 for which she was held responsible."
"One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for."
https://clarotesting.wordpress.com/tag/dalmellingto-bug/
"The Dalmellington Bug entailed a user repeatedly hitting a key when the system froze as she was trying to acknowledge receipt of a consignment of £8,000 in cash. Unknown to her each time she struck the key she accepted responsibility for a further £8,000. The bug created a discrepancy of £24,000 for which she was held responsible."
There's some more detail here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post...
It only mentions a few bugs out of the hundreds that were discovered (a full list hasn't been published), but it appears that the bugs weren't the only issue:
> In 2015, for instance, the Post Office told the House of Commons inquiry: “There is no functionality in Horizon for either a branch, Post Office or Fujitsu to edit, manipulate or remove transaction data once it has been recorded in a branch’s accounts.” This was untrue, and the Post Office admitted as such four years later during a high court case.
> In fact, staff at Fujitsu, which made and operated the Horizon system, were capable of remotely accessing branch accounts, and had “unrestricted and unaudited” access to those systems, the inquiry heard.
It's truly a scandal that no-one in charge at the Post Office or Fujitsu has been prosecuted for providing false testimony that led to so much misery and death for the sub postmasters. The MET has finally started to investigate fraud and perjury charges which seems like they only bother investigating crimes that have been made into a popular four-part series.
It only mentions a few bugs out of the hundreds that were discovered (a full list hasn't been published), but it appears that the bugs weren't the only issue:
> In 2015, for instance, the Post Office told the House of Commons inquiry: “There is no functionality in Horizon for either a branch, Post Office or Fujitsu to edit, manipulate or remove transaction data once it has been recorded in a branch’s accounts.” This was untrue, and the Post Office admitted as such four years later during a high court case.
> In fact, staff at Fujitsu, which made and operated the Horizon system, were capable of remotely accessing branch accounts, and had “unrestricted and unaudited” access to those systems, the inquiry heard.
It's truly a scandal that no-one in charge at the Post Office or Fujitsu has been prosecuted for providing false testimony that led to so much misery and death for the sub postmasters. The MET has finally started to investigate fraud and perjury charges which seems like they only bother investigating crimes that have been made into a popular four-part series.
> In fact, staff at Fujitsu, which made and operated the Horizon system, were capable of remotely accessing branch accounts, and had “unrestricted and unaudited” access to those systems
I worked in core banking systems for a bit. This is beyond basic, it demonstrates Fujitsu do not have controls in place to design compliant systems. Fujitsu should forever have their reputation tarnished and never let near financial systems. I don't often advocate selling a business to Tata, but this might be one of those times.
I worked in core banking systems for a bit. This is beyond basic, it demonstrates Fujitsu do not have controls in place to design compliant systems. Fujitsu should forever have their reputation tarnished and never let near financial systems. I don't often advocate selling a business to Tata, but this might be one of those times.
The Met's had an investigation open over this since 2020, all that seems to have happened as a result of this popular four-part series is that they've confirmed they're looking into specific possible criminal offences by the Post Office or its employees that we didn't know they were looking in to before. It's not clear that this is something which started investigating because of the popular TV series, but most likely not and they were just pressured into revealing more about the existing investigation - the police here don't generally give running updates on criminal investigations to the media.
Have they really "finally started to investigate". They opened an investigation in 2020, apparently interviewed 2 people and then gave up. What have they done recently?
Apparently so, but they're not forthcoming with more details as it's an active investigation now since the TV series is drawing attention to the scandal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189
From that article:
> Two people have been interviewed under caution but nobody has been arrested since the investigation was launched in January 2020.
Exactly what I said.
> Two people have been interviewed under caution but nobody has been arrested since the investigation was launched in January 2020.
Exactly what I said.
I was curious for the same, and ended up reading this - https://em360tech.com/tech-article/post-office-scandal
It seems like the classical mega-corp system issues:
"These flaws included rounding errors, data corruption, and issues with synchronization between local and central databases."
It seems like the classical mega-corp system issues:
"These flaws included rounding errors, data corruption, and issues with synchronization between local and central databases."
I was listening to a programme about this on Radio 4 last night
it seems like, on top of the buggy software, Fujitsu had contractors logging in to Post Office systems to manually 'fix' accounting errors the buggy software had produced
one of them described how while they were logged in to the POS system it would appear to be working to the real user but would actually be doing nothing because it was in some kind of remote admin mode, seems like the sort of remediation that's likely to make things worse
sounded like a total shit show
it seems like, on top of the buggy software, Fujitsu had contractors logging in to Post Office systems to manually 'fix' accounting errors the buggy software had produced
one of them described how while they were logged in to the POS system it would appear to be working to the real user but would actually be doing nothing because it was in some kind of remote admin mode, seems like the sort of remediation that's likely to make things worse
sounded like a total shit show
Apparently Fujitsu could log in and change the live data on a subpostmaster's system remotely and they frequently did this to make corrections. However it looked as if the subpostmaster had made the change. There was no proper audit log. However the subpostmasters were told remote access was impossible and any errors were 100% their fault.
The wrong people went to prison.
All the existing convictions must be considered unsafe.
The wrong people went to prison.
All the existing convictions must be considered unsafe.
The technical appendix to the judgement in Bates v Post Office:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...
The judgement in question: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...
[edit: added judgement proper]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...
The judgement in question: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...
[edit: added judgement proper]
Yes, there is the technical appendix to the 2019 judgement.
https://www.jfsa.org.uk/uploads/5/4/3/1/54312921/technical_a...
https://www.jfsa.org.uk/uploads/5/4/3/1/54312921/technical_a...
I've also been looking and there has been no information about the nature of the software fault(s) that were the source of the accounting discrepancies that were the trigger for these miscarriages of justice. [edit: yes there are, see above]
But we can't blame this scandal on a software fault, or even an averagely terrible government IT contractor - there were some monsters in the Post Office who chose to take this as far as they did.
(for dang) I'd change this link to the main source on this story since the mid-2000s - https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...
But we can't blame this scandal on a software fault, or even an averagely terrible government IT contractor - there were some monsters in the Post Office who chose to take this as far as they did.
(for dang) I'd change this link to the main source on this story since the mid-2000s - https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post...
> One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for.
> Another bug, called the Callendar Square bug – again named after the first branch found to have been affected by it – created duplicate transactions due to an error in the database underpinning the system: despite being clear duplicates, the post office operator was again held responsible for the errors.
There isn't a full list of the bugs produced, but it does look like a lot of bugs directly involved incorrect accounting to be recorded.
> One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for.
> Another bug, called the Callendar Square bug – again named after the first branch found to have been affected by it – created duplicate transactions due to an error in the database underpinning the system: despite being clear duplicates, the post office operator was again held responsible for the errors.
There isn't a full list of the bugs produced, but it does look like a lot of bugs directly involved incorrect accounting to be recorded.
I had assumed that bugs allowing such miscarriages of justice would require a completely unsound accounting method in the software. Unless, eg, the accounting simply didn't store a transaction ledger and software didn't store logs, and instead mostly just updated balances with no history, it was unclear to me how software bugs in an otherwise reasonably sound accounting method could result in accounting so wrong that it couldn't seen to be incorrect when investigated at the level of thoroughness one might expect for court proceedings.
But these bugs suggest that at least some of the errors would likely have been obvious in a ledger, and the Post Office simply didn't care. That rather makes Fujitsu look not quite as bad here, and the Post Office look worse.
But these bugs suggest that at least some of the errors would likely have been obvious in a ledger, and the Post Office simply didn't care. That rather makes Fujitsu look not quite as bad here, and the Post Office look worse.
This was interesting: https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2021/07/15/what-went-wrong-with...
Sounds like a rather complex distributed system which no one fully understood combined with the failure of the database to meet ACID requirements.
Sounds like a rather complex distributed system which no one fully understood combined with the failure of the database to meet ACID requirements.
I felt exactly the same. I read some of the original Second Sight reports and I very much got the impression that the issues were quite broad and related to inadequate training, poor/confusing UI etc.
There isn't, as far as I can tell, a single interesting "bug" that was causing incorrect figures to be saved in a database, which is the impression you get from skimming the coverage.
There isn't, as far as I can tell, a single interesting "bug" that was causing incorrect figures to be saved in a database, which is the impression you get from skimming the coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post...
> One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for.
> Another bug, called the Callendar Square bug – again named after the first branch found to have been affected by it – created duplicate transactions due to an error in the database underpinning the system: despite being clear duplicates, the post office operator was again held responsible for the errors.
There isn't a full list of the bugs produced, but it does look like a lot of bugs directly involved incorrect accounting to be recorded.
> One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for.
> Another bug, called the Callendar Square bug – again named after the first branch found to have been affected by it – created duplicate transactions due to an error in the database underpinning the system: despite being clear duplicates, the post office operator was again held responsible for the errors.
There isn't a full list of the bugs produced, but it does look like a lot of bugs directly involved incorrect accounting to be recorded.
My father was interviewed for a potential job as trainer for the Horizons system many years ago. He was horrified by the attitude of the company running the training. Thankfully he didn't get the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post... states "a full list [of bugs] has never been produced".
The article gives one example of a bug where the UI would freeze/get stuck, but still respond to key presses, so a user might think the system had crashed but press 'enter' repeatedly, which would silently create several records.
The article gives one example of a bug where the UI would freeze/get stuck, but still respond to key presses, so a user might think the system had crashed but press 'enter' repeatedly, which would silently create several records.
There is an excellent Computerphile video discussing some of the issues in the Horizons software system at the heart of this scandal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10
There is work in progress in the high-level inquiry that should manage to produce most of it. Besides that, you can try to check the appeals court reports, which are not too bad.
If you're in the UK, the Panorama documentary on this from 2022 is really worth watching - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0016t20/panorama-the-...
As I said in another submission, people sent other people to jail through negligence and deliberate cover ups. People were bankrupted and had money extorted from them. The only remedy for this is jail time for those involved. They should lose liberty, have their name dragged through the mud and gave financial ruin. Make the time fit the crime
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38931792
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38931792
Fujitsu’s non-executive chairman until 2019, Simon Blagden has donated £376,000 to the Conservative party.
"Despite Fujitsu suing the Government over its failed NHS IT project on his watch, Mr Blagden, who was said to have dined regularly with PM Theresa May, was awarded a CBE in 2016 for services to the economy."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fujitsu-exposed-real-...
"Despite Fujitsu suing the Government over its failed NHS IT project on his watch, Mr Blagden, who was said to have dined regularly with PM Theresa May, was awarded a CBE in 2016 for services to the economy."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fujitsu-exposed-real-...
Further IT related miscarriages of justice are a likely consequence of the recent 'digital transformation' of the UK's courts service - see https://csan149.substack.com/p/justice-at-risk
The case management software now used within the justice system itself is deeply flawed and poses a risk to large numbers of cases including child protection, benefit appeals, divorce and probate.
The case management software now used within the justice system itself is deeply flawed and poses a risk to large numbers of cases including child protection, benefit appeals, divorce and probate.
I wish that were the only cause of miscarriages of justice in the UK... The whole British justice system is now beyond farcical. A quick read of The Secret Barrister [1] will leave one despairing for the state of the country.
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken...
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken...
Agreed, these broken software systems are a symptom and cannot be treated solely as a technical problem to be fixed in isolation.
HMCTS is spending ~50 - 100x the amount required (on private consultants) to create these broken IT systems whilst other parts of the justice system are starved of resources.
A radical change in culture and leadership is required.
HMCTS is spending ~50 - 100x the amount required (on private consultants) to create these broken IT systems whilst other parts of the justice system are starved of resources.
A radical change in culture and leadership is required.
I understand the UK vaccination IT system (not track and trace!) was created by a small team and worked very well.
A similar, software based debt-recovery occurred in Australia from 2016-2020 [1]. The government of the day in 2015 figured they could recover ~$1.5B by automating some of the processes, since there were not enough people to investigate all the possible instances. The main issue was that the software scheme used averaging, which in some cases was not accurate.
As in this story, despite people immediately claiming issue with some of the methods, it was pursued for years. And again, in several cases it tragically resulted in suicides.
In the end, after ~$1.8B of repayments and a royal commission, a couple of people resigned but there was - at least in my view - no significant repercussions for the decision makers and responsible parties at the time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme
As in this story, despite people immediately claiming issue with some of the methods, it was pursued for years. And again, in several cases it tragically resulted in suicides.
In the end, after ~$1.8B of repayments and a royal commission, a couple of people resigned but there was - at least in my view - no significant repercussions for the decision makers and responsible parties at the time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme
It’s another example of the British establishment and media blaming “computer glitches” and “the system”. A buggy accounting system on its own cannot cause such a disaster, unlike a buggy avionics system or a Therac-25.
This scandal would not have happened if the people in power had rightly been skeptical of the output of an accounting system that had been called into disrepute by several employees.
People did this. People chose to prosecute. People lied. The courts accepted dodgy evidence. The scandal is the post office employees, the solicitors, the courts, and the Fujitsu employees, not the buggy accounting system. People took the output of an accounting system as though it had come down from a mountain on a stone tablet.
This scandal would not have happened if the people in power had rightly been skeptical of the output of an accounting system that had been called into disrepute by several employees.
People did this. People chose to prosecute. People lied. The courts accepted dodgy evidence. The scandal is the post office employees, the solicitors, the courts, and the Fujitsu employees, not the buggy accounting system. People took the output of an accounting system as though it had come down from a mountain on a stone tablet.
It’s the same logic people use for claiming ai “will destroy us”. They deflect responsibility for making crapware. Having said that, there is not a single software company I worked at in the UK that has not suffered from serious glitches that no one wanted to fix. One I heard of and it may have been reported in the media was a prison software that let people go either sooner or later than they should have - never on time. Engineering is a joke in the UK because good engineers are considered “obsessed” while talkers are pushed in front. All due to the same mediocre leadership that blames the very same software they dont allocate proper engineering time to fix.
Another horrendous scandal in the UK was Operation Ore, twenty years ago. Thousands of people were falsely accused of purchasing child pornography because their credit card numbers were stolen and used by fraudsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore#Controversies
I'm following this from the UK. I watched the first episode of "Bates vs Post Office". It's interesting to see that the Horizon system, set up in 1999, was a client-server model with a box in each post office syncing with a central server. I'm surprised they thought this would work back then, given the challenges like network problems, failures and backup and the sheer volume of data. To me, it seems like the technology wasn't available back then. They had a big idea for a paperless system, and the tech team scrambled to build something without checking feasibility.
> To me, it seems like the technology wasn't available back then.
Banks had been doing this sort of stuff (distributed transactional integrity) for years by the time the Horizon system was conceived. SAP and Oracle were in widespread use, and Oracle (the database underlying Horizon) was explicitly exonerated as a source of the bugs.
Banks had been doing this sort of stuff (distributed transactional integrity) for years by the time the Horizon system was conceived. SAP and Oracle were in widespread use, and Oracle (the database underlying Horizon) was explicitly exonerated as a source of the bugs.
I always used to wonder why the folks at the cash register always make it a point to print the transaction slip in the pos machine and securing the paper in their drawers, when everything's recorded electronically already.
Not any more.
Not any more.
Covering up a crime should carry the same sentence as the crime.
Putting an innicent person in jail should carry the maximum sentence the innocent person could have received.
The problem is then they cover up even more.
Putting an innicent person in jail should carry the maximum sentence the innocent person could have received.
The problem is then they cover up even more.
> Post Office Ltd had ordered Second Sight to end its investigation just one day before the report was due to be published, and to destroy all the paperwork that it had not handed over.
Gosh dang it.
Gosh dang it.
Evidently, there is now a legislative push for parliament to reverse these convictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0h48cft
“UK to bring in law to quash wrongful Post Office convictions”
According to the BBC Global News Podcast “The legal step followed public outrage after a TV”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0h48cft
“UK to bring in law to quash wrongful Post Office convictions”
According to the BBC Global News Podcast “The legal step followed public outrage after a TV”
Britons - this is your reminder that Private Eye is available for subscription at the very low price of £45 for an issue in your letterbox fortnightly.
Worth every penny for their investigative journalism. Even if you never read it. And the cartoons are very good!
Good point. I buy it when I see it in the supermarket, but a subscription makes more sense. Ordered!
I wish Ian Hislop would drop his opposition to doing a sensible online version - I'd happily subscribe for access to the same content posted online, but when I get it posted through my door I find I don't read it.
Considering how often they've been sued over the content of the magazine [1] I suspect they quite like knowing that every publication is immediately water under the bridge.
Once they've mailed out the magazine they can't delete a story, no matter what - and if someone doesn't like the content? Two weeks later it's disappeared from news stands.
Newspapers that rely too heavily on advert revenue also often have conflicts of interest (which you'd know about, if you were reading the Eye) so I suspect they like having enough subscriber income that they only need to sell ads for wool sweaters and reading lights - advertisers who are unlikely to want a story spiked.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Libel_cases
Once they've mailed out the magazine they can't delete a story, no matter what - and if someone doesn't like the content? Two weeks later it's disappeared from news stands.
Newspapers that rely too heavily on advert revenue also often have conflicts of interest (which you'd know about, if you were reading the Eye) so I suspect they like having enough subscriber income that they only need to sell ads for wool sweaters and reading lights - advertisers who are unlikely to want a story spiked.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Libel_cases
They do have a very good podcast, which is free:
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast
Honestly curious: can you expand a bit on why subscribe? I live in the UK, but never heard about Private Eye before?
Its the best source of investigative journalism in the Uk, generally you'll hear about a story in Private Eye years before it gets to the national press or the BBC.
Its a great souce for stories of wrong doing in national and local government, business, schools, the NHS, transport, farming and the Media. They regularly report on miscarriages of justice which you'll never usually hear about and get to the root of certain stories that are only very superficially reported on nationally.
Its also a fantastic source of scurrilous gossip and rumour about politics and media which is usually accurate. They've been doing it for years now, since the early 1960's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye
Its a great souce for stories of wrong doing in national and local government, business, schools, the NHS, transport, farming and the Media. They regularly report on miscarriages of justice which you'll never usually hear about and get to the root of certain stories that are only very superficially reported on nationally.
Its also a fantastic source of scurrilous gossip and rumour about politics and media which is usually accurate. They've been doing it for years now, since the early 1960's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye
>you'll hear about a story in Private Eye years before it gets to the national press or the BBC.
Still waiting to hear why a certain young person (of very modest accomplishments) made it into the House of Lords. Given the absence of any reporting by PE on this, it seems that rumours of a 'super injunction' might be true.
Still waiting to hear why a certain young person (of very modest accomplishments) made it into the House of Lords. Given the absence of any reporting by PE on this, it seems that rumours of a 'super injunction' might be true.
A certain prime ministers alleged daughter?
Daddy BoJo or sugar daddy BloJo? I think we should be told.
I would highly recommend Byline times as well. They also do a digital edition on top of a print one.
https://bylinetimes.com/
https://bylinetimes.com/
This. When I see television news I continually wonder: why are there no mentions of so much important news the Eye is covering?
Easiest option is just to buy a single issue in a supermarket or newsagent and see if you like it. The subscription works out cheaper, but it's not expensive anyway. There's a website (https://www.private-eye.co.uk), but for the most part that only publishes the more lighthearted content. The serious stuff is only in the print edition.
Yes, good point, I should have said that myself. It's a much lower barrier to entry to pay £2-something in the newsagents.
That said, part of the great value I get from Private Eye is seeing things unfold over multiple issues or even multiple years as is the case of the Post Office/Fujitsu thing.
That said, part of the great value I get from Private Eye is seeing things unfold over multiple issues or even multiple years as is the case of the Post Office/Fujitsu thing.
You’ve certainly seen the cover of Private Eye if you’ve passed the magazine section of any newsagent or supermarket.
I’m not a massive fan of Politics JOE but I enjoyed this interview with Eye editor Ian Hislop, which I think is a good overview of his attitudes and politics https://youtu.be/IbXQWqZ2RvA
I’m not a massive fan of Politics JOE but I enjoyed this interview with Eye editor Ian Hislop, which I think is a good overview of his attitudes and politics https://youtu.be/IbXQWqZ2RvA
Private Eye is a publication that Ian Hislop from Have I Got News For You edits. It's often quite funny, it tends to hold government, corporations and public figures to account much better than most newspapers. It's generally pretty good, but it's tarnished a bit by backing Andrew Wakefield when he made up the MMR/autism connection
Hislop quietly rolled back his Wakefield support, sadly not in a front page apology as he should have:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2010/feb/05/pri...
He may have been smitten by Heather Mills who was the journalistic driving force behind that crusade.
FWiW when I see Private Eye I still think Peter Cook.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2010/feb/05/pri...
He may have been smitten by Heather Mills who was the journalistic driving force behind that crusade.
FWiW when I see Private Eye I still think Peter Cook.
Even there they try to downplay it, to be honest:
> ... when we wrote about the concerns of Wakefield
This really undersells the situation, it suggests he was just a concerned doctor who innocently pursued a theory that turned out to be wrong. You're likely aware of how it went down but for everyone else: Wakefield completely fabricated some evidence to raise fears that a combined measles/mumps/rubella vaccine was causing autism via some hitherto unknown gastro-intestinal disease (giving some pretty invasive and unnecessary procedures on kids in the process) with the intent of profiting from a vaccine of his own. He was struck off and prevented from practicing medicine in the UK (still active in the USA) but the damage had been done and he basically laid the groundwork for modern day antivax movement.
This doesn't discredit Private Eye altogether, of course. It's just a bit annoying that they have this. A reminder, perhaps, that nobody's perfect?
> ... when we wrote about the concerns of Wakefield
This really undersells the situation, it suggests he was just a concerned doctor who innocently pursued a theory that turned out to be wrong. You're likely aware of how it went down but for everyone else: Wakefield completely fabricated some evidence to raise fears that a combined measles/mumps/rubella vaccine was causing autism via some hitherto unknown gastro-intestinal disease (giving some pretty invasive and unnecessary procedures on kids in the process) with the intent of profiting from a vaccine of his own. He was struck off and prevented from practicing medicine in the UK (still active in the USA) but the damage had been done and he basically laid the groundwork for modern day antivax movement.
This doesn't discredit Private Eye altogether, of course. It's just a bit annoying that they have this. A reminder, perhaps, that nobody's perfect?
And if you're not sure if you want to subscribe, Page 94, the Private Eye Podcast [1] provides a great roundup of their main stories in inimitable fashion.
1. https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast
1. https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast
The most obvious and current reason is their tireless work on the Post Office scandal, but in general they print news that newspapers won't for fear of losing their relationships with politicians and other powerful figures.
A recent example is the story that an MP walked in on Carrie blowing Boris in his office as Foreign Secretary while he was still married to another woman, and that at the time he was also trying to get her a paid job in his office.
The Times had that story and printed most of it (though referred only to a 'comprimising situation') in their early edition of the paper the next day but it vanished from the later prints which end up in newsagents. The Mail also had the story online for a couple of hours before deleting it.
Private Eye printed the whole saga including the gory detail and the article getting spiked.
You might say this is just lurid gossip but as a taxpayer I would like to know if our leaders are giving paid jobs in government to women who blow them on the side, and I won't find out about it from any newspapers.
(The cartoons are pretty funny too!)
A recent example is the story that an MP walked in on Carrie blowing Boris in his office as Foreign Secretary while he was still married to another woman, and that at the time he was also trying to get her a paid job in his office.
The Times had that story and printed most of it (though referred only to a 'comprimising situation') in their early edition of the paper the next day but it vanished from the later prints which end up in newsagents. The Mail also had the story online for a couple of hours before deleting it.
Private Eye printed the whole saga including the gory detail and the article getting spiked.
You might say this is just lurid gossip but as a taxpayer I would like to know if our leaders are giving paid jobs in government to women who blow them on the side, and I won't find out about it from any newspapers.
(The cartoons are pretty funny too!)
I couldn't immediately find the reference but if I remember correctly they also referenced Boris' alleged fair with a Russian Violinist (potentially the one which sparked the "get off my f*cling laptop" incident), at least in cartoon form. Allegedly there is a super injunction on that one.
Well it's not gossip, it's against the law. The person 'walking in' on them was at work -- they could easily press charges. It's at least indecent exposure.
I predict the next big scandal of this kind will involve AI of some form (not least because you can sell any code more complicated than a spreadsheet as AI these days). The post office scandal shows that you can horribly mess up "trust the computers" even before AI or "smart" systems were a thing.
So.... In a lot of these cases the system wrongly reported money missing at these lower levels. It seems these numbers should have rolled up into sums at a higher level that also showed losses and they prosecuted people. But the money was never actually missing so where did it go? Hmmm?
Surely the "missing" money was never there in the first place?
If a Post Office had £20,000 in takings on a day, but the buggy system reported takings of £30,000, then that's £10,000 of money reported missing, which the postmasters were prosecuted for stealing.
But that £10,000 didn't "go" anywhere. It never existed.
If a Post Office had £20,000 in takings on a day, but the buggy system reported takings of £30,000, then that's £10,000 of money reported missing, which the postmasters were prosecuted for stealing.
But that £10,000 didn't "go" anywhere. It never existed.
Woops. There are two numbers that don't match here. I just assumed the higher one was correct and the other one was misreported by the system. You may be right that the lower one may be correct and the higher one was wrong, in which case the money never existed.
In many cases the subpostmasters paid the 'missing' amount to the Post Office, rather than lose their franchise or even go to prison. That then went towards Post Office profits and management bonuses. Ka-ching - Trebles all round!
Dupe/Related discussion on current event:
Ex Post Office CEO hands back award after IT failures lead to false convictions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38930011
Ex Post Office CEO hands back award after IT failures lead to false convictions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38930011
The TV drama doesn't mention Adam Crozier, who was CEO of Royal Mail 2003-10. I wonder if this is at all related the fact that Crozier was also CEO of ITV 2010-2017, the company that made the TV drama?
> The Post Office agreed to settle out of court for £58 million. The subpostmasters' legal costs amounted to £47 million, leaving them with only about £20,000 each.
Something's obscenely wrong here.
Something's obscenely wrong here.
Does anyone know of a report in to the actual technical fault of the system?
See https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...
(posted in another comment here)
> the actual technical fault
There were numerous issues, no single fault.
(posted in another comment here)
> the actual technical fault
There were numerous issues, no single fault.
The article seems to consist mostly of abstruse legal wrangling, is there a TL:DR of the actual bug(s) at hand? There was some mention of Fujitsu rabidly denying remote access only for it to be revealed they actually did have this, was it some kind of sync error or something more malicious?
In middle of this it's obscene how the media neglects to mention who did most of the actual investigative journalism: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/ -- for years on end, whilst the issue was ignored by the rest of the press.
They all now jump in on it and elide the years of work put in by the PE. This is a common tactic in media outlets, esp. here, for the major sources to try to "own" issues with nearly zero work put in on them.
They all now jump in on it and elide the years of work put in by the PE. This is a common tactic in media outlets, esp. here, for the major sources to try to "own" issues with nearly zero work put in on them.
Ian hislop mentioned yesterday that computer weekly ran it in 2009. He implied private eye picked it up after that. I've been reading about probably once every two years in the guardian.
The thing that is so upsetting about all of this is that it's been pretty much ignored by government since 2009, the post office systematically lied and covered this up while knowing it was destroying innocent people. And the only reason they got traction was due to a docu drama last week. I don't normally feel like this, but I really hope people from the post office go to prison and lose their pensions over this. They deserve worse.
The thing that is so upsetting about all of this is that it's been pretty much ignored by government since 2009, the post office systematically lied and covered this up while knowing it was destroying innocent people. And the only reason they got traction was due to a docu drama last week. I don't normally feel like this, but I really hope people from the post office go to prison and lose their pensions over this. They deserve worse.
The cover-up is at least as dangerous as the original incompetence. It was a heavy-handed, conscious, legally aggressive cover-up. The people responsible knew exactly what was happening, and they were more than happy for the blame to fall on innocent sub-postmasters.
Horizon cost £2.4bn and was apparently developed by a team of eight, three of whom were described by the team lead as "incompetent."
Fujitsu also screwed up an IT system for the NHS. £10bn was wasted on "the biggest IT failure ever seen."
But Fujitsu still keep getting government contracts.
Which is an even bigger scandal. There's a real stench of corruption around these deals, and of government procurement in general in the UK.
See also HS2, PPE procurement, Test and Trace, and others.
Horizon cost £2.4bn and was apparently developed by a team of eight, three of whom were described by the team lead as "incompetent."
Fujitsu also screwed up an IT system for the NHS. £10bn was wasted on "the biggest IT failure ever seen."
But Fujitsu still keep getting government contracts.
Which is an even bigger scandal. There's a real stench of corruption around these deals, and of government procurement in general in the UK.
See also HS2, PPE procurement, Test and Trace, and others.
> But Fujitsu still keep getting government contracts
This isn’t terribly surprising: government contracting is a hard business to qualify for and relatively few companies have done so. They all have failures along with successes so any attempt to ban one of them will be opposed by the people who’ve found some semblance of a working team as well as any politicians they’re close to, and it’s hard to argue that most of the replacements would be substantially more likely to deliver working systems.
The underlying problem here is that this work should be run by civil servants who are familiar with the domain and have the proper incentives. This is politically anathema to the Tory/New Labor types (or Republicans here in the US) who are committed to the fiction that there are enormous cost savings to be had from outsourcing government functions and they aren’t going lead a serious procurement reform effort because the first answer would be “most things are less efficient when contracted out” and the second would be “you need to pay market rates for technical talent even to contract effectively and empower those experts”.
This isn’t terribly surprising: government contracting is a hard business to qualify for and relatively few companies have done so. They all have failures along with successes so any attempt to ban one of them will be opposed by the people who’ve found some semblance of a working team as well as any politicians they’re close to, and it’s hard to argue that most of the replacements would be substantially more likely to deliver working systems.
The underlying problem here is that this work should be run by civil servants who are familiar with the domain and have the proper incentives. This is politically anathema to the Tory/New Labor types (or Republicans here in the US) who are committed to the fiction that there are enormous cost savings to be had from outsourcing government functions and they aren’t going lead a serious procurement reform effort because the first answer would be “most things are less efficient when contracted out” and the second would be “you need to pay market rates for technical talent even to contract effectively and empower those experts”.
Indeed. You can't sack/blacklist Capita or Serco or Fujitsu, no matter how bad their conduct, because they're absolutely critical to British state capacity. And the only reason they've been made that critical is profit and union-busting. Which is kept in place by recycling donations to the ruling party.
Procurement is indeed broken/corrupt. See also the recent £1.4 HMCTS reform programme.
https://csan149.substack.com/p/justice-at-risk
https://csan149.substack.com/p/justice-at-risk
> Horizon cost £2.4bn and was apparently developed by a team of eight, three of whom were described by the team lead as "incompetent."
Where did most of that money go? Was there 8000 middle managers?
Where did most of that money go? Was there 8000 middle managers?
> But Fujitsu still keep getting government contracts.
The brand is getting a bit too tarnished though. I wouldn't be surprised to see them rebranding soon.
The brand is getting a bit too tarnished though. I wouldn't be surprised to see them rebranding soon.
Or increasing their political 'donations'.
Yeah, this is a huge ongoing scandal, and you'd only know about it if you were in tech or a politics nerd. 750 victims, including bankruptcies, prison sentences and suicides, and just one week after a TV drama something is actually being done about it. (That it can be used to attack Starmer and Davey is, I'm sure, unrelated.)
Heads need to roll over this. Can you believe the woman responsible nearly became a bishop?
Heads need to roll over this. Can you believe the woman responsible nearly became a bishop?
> Can you believe the woman responsible nearly became a bishop?
Well, yes? Have you seen the kinds of people elevated to the House of Lords lately? These institutions are now profoundly corrupt.
Well, yes? Have you seen the kinds of people elevated to the House of Lords lately? These institutions are now profoundly corrupt.
I recommend reading https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-horizon-it-scand...
Private Eye definitely did a lot of work, but they were not the only ones, and multiple freelancers and journalists worked on it "in the shadows" for years.
The Post Office tactics of calling editors to make threats and play down the stories were also quite influential.
Private Eye definitely did a lot of work, but they were not the only ones, and multiple freelancers and journalists worked on it "in the shadows" for years.
The Post Office tactics of calling editors to make threats and play down the stories were also quite influential.
It wasn't ignored by the rest of the press. Private eye was one of many outlets, an important one granted, but the story was repeatedly reported on and investigated over the years by the local papers, Computer Weekly, TheRegister, the BBC, ITV, The Guardian, etc. Indeed Nick Wallis, an independent journalist, has covered it very closely for a very long time (including a special in an issue of PE):
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/
The scandal has hit the headlines many, many times across all the outlets, particularly in 2019-21 with the litigation and appeal cases. It was the subject of an episode of BBC Panorama in 2015 (fronted by Nick Wallis).
But it all comes to nought. The victims are still out of pocket and still have criminal prosecutions. If the media are to blame, then so is the judiciary, and so is the government, who have had it in their power to provide financial redress. And of course the Post Office and Fujitsu are the culprits.
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/
The scandal has hit the headlines many, many times across all the outlets, particularly in 2019-21 with the litigation and appeal cases. It was the subject of an episode of BBC Panorama in 2015 (fronted by Nick Wallis).
But it all comes to nought. The victims are still out of pocket and still have criminal prosecutions. If the media are to blame, then so is the judiciary, and so is the government, who have had it in their power to provide financial redress. And of course the Post Office and Fujitsu are the culprits.
Apparently this all changed because of a docudrama. By some mysterious media magic this made it a real issue in a way that plain old journalism hadn't.
There is talk of legislation to quash all of the convictions, which is nice, but it's unlikely most sub-postmasters will see any real compensation.
And the people who made a fortune off this will almost certainly keep it.
There is talk of legislation to quash all of the convictions, which is nice, but it's unlikely most sub-postmasters will see any real compensation.
And the people who made a fortune off this will almost certainly keep it.
I learnt about the story from Private Eye, they'd been following it for years, there were other sources as well though, but none of them were the national press or the BBC or ITV.
This story wasnt glamourous for them and they only swooped in when well after the court cases when it looked like there would be political dimension. Its sad that proper investigative journalism is only found in the smaller publications these days.
This story wasnt glamourous for them and they only swooped in when well after the court cases when it looked like there would be political dimension. Its sad that proper investigative journalism is only found in the smaller publications these days.
> they only swooped in when [...] it looked like there would be political dimension.
I'll tell you more: it's only being pushed now, after the tv production, because it tangentially involves the two leaders of the opposition.
I'll tell you more: it's only being pushed now, after the tv production, because it tangentially involves the two leaders of the opposition.
In what way?
Keir Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service in those years. Some (but not all) prosecutions were likely picked up and carried out by the CPS. How much the head of the institution is (or should be) supposed to intervene / interfere in specific issues like this, though, is very debatable.
Ed Davey, more damningly, was a minister with responsibility for postal matters at the time the scandal was really breaking. He basically made no effort to help the victims, and just parroted the Post Office line. He now says he was lied to "on a massive scale" which, as a line of defence, is a bit weak. Tbh, the LibDem record, in that government, is pretty bad anyway; simply reminding people of that "Coalition" government is probably enough to blow a few holes in their electoral boats.
Ed Davey, more damningly, was a minister with responsibility for postal matters at the time the scandal was really breaking. He basically made no effort to help the victims, and just parroted the Post Office line. He now says he was lied to "on a massive scale" which, as a line of defence, is a bit weak. Tbh, the LibDem record, in that government, is pretty bad anyway; simply reminding people of that "Coalition" government is probably enough to blow a few holes in their electoral boats.
>none of them were the national press or the BBC or ITV
There was a BBC Panoram program in 2015: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4961332/
There was a BBC Panoram program in 2015: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4961332/
I think that Computer Weekly were at the forefront of it
There were lots including, iirc, https://www.theregister.com/
IIRC they sat on the story for a year before publishing, understandably worried about the blowback.
But behind a paywall, so few people would have read it.
this sums up the government response (it's a parody, a very good parody...): https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1744711394405044569
Private Eye deserve huge credit for their doggedness - they kept at it despite it not getting picked up by any major newspaper beyond a two paragraph mention buried deep inside. Let's not write Nick Wallis out of this though, his Radio 4 series was instrumental in bringing it wider attention.
[deleted]
This thing has layers.
It's scandalous that a £billion computer system had basic accounting errors.
It's scandalous that Fujitsu pressured the government to accept the system, and scandalous that the government gave in to this pressure.
It's scandalous how the private prosecution hid evidence.
It's scandalous how long it takes the courts to rectify miscarriages of justice.
It's scandalous that it took a popular TV show to get the government's attention.
It's scandalous that a £billion computer system had basic accounting errors.
It's scandalous that Fujitsu pressured the government to accept the system, and scandalous that the government gave in to this pressure.
It's scandalous how the private prosecution hid evidence.
It's scandalous how long it takes the courts to rectify miscarriages of justice.
It's scandalous that it took a popular TV show to get the government's attention.
The cynic in me says that the Government only took notice to shift the narrative from the fact that they've pushed the election until later in the year, when everyone expected it to be in May (where it was predicted that they would meet a resounding defeated.)
I'm glad the victims are getting justice, but I hate that it might only have gotten this level of scrutiny because it's a fight that makes the Government look responsible...
I'm glad the victims are getting justice, but I hate that it might only have gotten this level of scrutiny because it's a fight that makes the Government look responsible...
I would say that's more 'realistic' than 'cynical'. The current government is incredibly unpopular so it's no suprise that they'd latch on to something that will be universally seen in a positive light when resolved.
And it allows them to throw mud at current leaders of the opposition, who were then in positions with tangential responsibility (well, Davey arguably had real responsibility, and his defence that he was lied-to is weak).
The scale of the Post Office scandal means that there are no easy and quick solutions for the government.
Ministers could advise the King to grant Royal Pardons, once reserved for the condemned as they faced the gallows.
But these would be largely symbolic acts because the government can't, at the stroke of a pen, quash a conviction. That’s because the courts are constitutionally independent - and that means a second option could be difficult too.
Parliament could pass an act declaring that all the Horizon convictions be quashed, but that would be an unprecedented meddling in the work of judges - and it would pave the way for politicians to do it again.
The third option is a mass appeal with a crystal clear submission to Court of Appeal judges that the state no longer believes the convictions should stand. There’s a precedent for this - 39 post office cases were overturned in one go in 2021.
But running such a case would not be easy - and it could still take years to resolve.