> The individual system was vouched for by senior people. Well, how the Post Office commissioned the Horizon system is something that the inquiry doesn't seem

> The individual system was vouched for by senior people. Well, how the Post Office commissioned the Horizon system is something that the inquiry doesn't seem to have got to yet. From what I've seen of the inquiry (not much), Post Office managers seem to have been desperate to protect the reputation of the Horizon system, and still are. But the miscarriages of justice have now been exposed, and the costs of putting them right are now unavoidable; so the reputation of Horizon can't now be just a matter of subpostmasters. My guess is that defects in Horizon, and damage to Horizon's reputation, will turn out to affect much more than the wronged subpostmasters. I suspect that some very large commercial contracts will turn out to be affected, and paying compensation to the subpostmasters will turn out to be a tiny component of the costs of this catastrophe. The Post Office is already warning that it may not be able to pay the compensation, and that the government will have to step up. The Post Office is a weird mess of subsidiaries and holding companies, and has contracts with all sorts of 3rd parties. I anticipate that we are going to witness a slooow explosion of the Post Office, over like ten years. It's ludicrous, of course, that a private company should be able to be complainant, investigator and prosecutor as well as being sole custodian of the evidence (Horizon logs). It's also ludicrous that the Post Office's lawyers, Cartwright King, should describe requests for disclosure as a "fishing expedition". Defendants shouldn't have to request disclosure of evidence that might help the defence; that is an obligation that falls on the prosecution as a matter of statute law. I'm waiting for the inquiry to find out how the Horizon system was commissioned, and how it was tested; and who was in charge of commissioning.