8 ms·

I have read about this somewhere else. The key issue seemed to be in the Post Office internal “Justice” system, which is opaque, biased and refused to consider

I have read about this somewhere else. The key issue seemed to be in the Post Office internal “Justice” system, which is opaque, biased and refused to consider evidence. It’s pretty stupid that in an age where we strife for universal rights, your job could strip you from defending yourself on the public justice system, with all its defects and warranties… The IT bug was an issue, sure, but the political mismanagement of an institution stuck in the past is what caused all the ruin for so many people. And it flew under the radar until Netflix made a movie. Actually, the lady running the PO was awarded a Goverment recognition. IT and code generation is full of pitfalls, but this one lays somewhere else.

freetanga 3y ago
From the FT article: __The state-owned Post Office acted as investigator and prosecutor in the cases, using the general right in English law for any individuals and organisations to pursue private prosecutions without involving the CPS. A public inquiry into the scandal has heard that the Post Office, among other aggressive legal tactics, accused sub-postmasters of theft to pressure them into pleading guilty to lesser charges. The CPS has identified 11 cases it brought against sub-postmasters that involved “notable evidence” from the Horizon system. Legal experts said the government had been warned several years ago that private prosecutions carried a higher risk because those pursuing them were more likely to have motivations other than securing justice. Lord Ken Macdonald KC, a former director of public prosecutions, said: “If you’ve got a body with skin in the game [such as the Post Office] acting as a prosecutor, that creates obvious risks and dangers.”__
- lmm 3y ago
  IMO the private prosecution is a necessary safeguard. In other countries you get the opposite problem: a gross injustice has been done, but the public prosecutor won't prosecute (often because the perpetrator was connected with the government in one way or another), so nothing gets done.
  - penguin_booze 3y ago
    From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. In this day and age, such a provision doesn't make sense, and must be done away with. As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. You were misinformed. > As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Yes we do; as the article says, in the UK any private organisation or individual has the right to bring a prosecution.
      - penguin_booze 3y ago
        > You were misinformed. As I could be now. My sources were the BBC and PrivateEye podcasts. What are yours?
        lmm 3y ago
        Here's the UK government's page on bringing a private prosecution: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecuti...
- owisd 3y ago
  It wasn’t actually a private prosecution, the Post Office has the right to prosecute on behalf of The Crown. The CPS can intervene on private prosecutions so it might not have flown under the radar for so long if it had actually been a private prosecution.
jack_riminton 3y ago
Management but no leadership The CEO managed the crisis, therefore she was rewarded. The government should have shown leadership and demanded answers after the first few years of warning signs. Yet it took 20 years and a TV drama to force them to show any leadership
- freetanga 3y ago
  Well, they only took 60+ years in admitting they went over they line by castrating Turing for being gay - after his huge relevance in keeping the UK safe in WW2 and using his name and face as poster for the role of UK in Computing History. The UK Goverment really needs to shake off all this archaic nonsense and modernize themlselves. It’s not in line with the fantastic culture of their country.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    The good old "Lions led by donkeys" saying comes to mind.
esskay 3y ago
Slight correction, ITV made the series Mr Bates vs the Post Office, not Netfix (no idea if its being shown internationally on Netflix under license however).
gklitz 3y ago
> The key issue seemed to be in the Post Office internal “Justice” system, which is opaque, biased and refused to consider evidence. No doubt pushed forwards by the racists believing in their heart that some of these sub postmasters HAD to be guilty because of their ethnicity.
rideontime 3y ago
Something to take into account when we consider replacing our legal system with a blockchain.
deathanatos 3y ago
> It’s pretty stupid that in an age where we strife for universal rights, your job could strip you from defending yourself on the public justice system, with all its defects and warranties… I agree it's pretty stupid, but it is becoming the case for more and more people; while slightly different than the situation in the UK, forced arbitration clauses strip the right of the employee to seek justice, and they're getting more and more common.

freetanga 3y ago

From the FT article: __The state-owned Post Office acted as investigator and prosecutor in the cases, using the general right in English law for any individuals and organisations to pursue private prosecutions without involving the CPS. A public inquiry into the scandal has heard that the Post Office, among other aggressive legal tactics, accused sub-postmasters of theft to pressure them into pleading guilty to lesser charges. The CPS has identified 11 cases it brought against sub-postmasters that involved “notable evidence” from the Horizon system. Legal experts said the government had been warned several years ago that private prosecutions carried a higher risk because those pursuing them were more likely to have motivations other than securing justice. Lord Ken Macdonald KC, a former director of public prosecutions, said: “If you’ve got a body with skin in the game [such as the Post Office] acting as a prosecutor, that creates obvious risks and dangers.”__

lmm 3y ago
IMO the private prosecution is a necessary safeguard. In other countries you get the opposite problem: a gross injustice has been done, but the public prosecutor won't prosecute (often because the perpetrator was connected with the government in one way or another), so nothing gets done.
- penguin_booze 3y ago
  From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. In this day and age, such a provision doesn't make sense, and must be done away with. As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. You were misinformed. > As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Yes we do; as the article says, in the UK any private organisation or individual has the right to bring a prosecution.
    - penguin_booze 3y ago
      > You were misinformed. As I could be now. My sources were the BBC and PrivateEye podcasts. What are yours?
      - lmm 3y ago
        Here's the UK government's page on bringing a private prosecution: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecuti...
owisd 3y ago
It wasn’t actually a private prosecution, the Post Office has the right to prosecute on behalf of The Crown. The CPS can intervene on private prosecutions so it might not have flown under the radar for so long if it had actually been a private prosecution.

jack_riminton 3y ago

Management but no leadership The CEO managed the crisis, therefore she was rewarded. The government should have shown leadership and demanded answers after the first few years of warning signs. Yet it took 20 years and a TV drama to force them to show any leadership

freetanga 3y ago
Well, they only took 60+ years in admitting they went over they line by castrating Turing for being gay - after his huge relevance in keeping the UK safe in WW2 and using his name and face as poster for the role of UK in Computing History. The UK Goverment really needs to shake off all this archaic nonsense and modernize themlselves. It’s not in line with the fantastic culture of their country.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  The good old "Lions led by donkeys" saying comes to mind.

esskay 3y ago

Slight correction, ITV made the series Mr Bates vs the Post Office, not Netfix (no idea if its being shown internationally on Netflix under license however).

gklitz 3y ago

> The key issue seemed to be in the Post Office internal “Justice” system, which is opaque, biased and refused to consider evidence. No doubt pushed forwards by the racists believing in their heart that some of these sub postmasters HAD to be guilty because of their ethnicity.

rideontime 3y ago

Something to take into account when we consider replacing our legal system with a blockchain.

deathanatos 3y ago

> It’s pretty stupid that in an age where we strife for universal rights, your job could strip you from defending yourself on the public justice system, with all its defects and warranties… I agree it's pretty stupid, but it is becoming the case for more and more people; while slightly different than the situation in the UK, forced arbitration clauses strip the right of the employee to seek justice, and they're getting more and more common.