7 ms·

Bugs are inevitable. The real issue is with the post office management that prosecuted people they knew there was a good chance were innocent, withheld evidence

Bugs are inevitable. The real issue is with the post office management that prosecuted people they knew there was a good chance were innocent, withheld evidence, falsified evidence, and harassed journalists investigating. What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells > witness statements from Fujitsu staff due to be heard in court were then edited by the Post Office as it sought to maintain the line that the system was working well as it pursued innocent people through the courts.

arp242 3y ago
I have generally found that there's not that much relation between people's stated beliefs and their actual every-day behaviour. By and large, I do think their beliefs are genuine and heart-felt, and that they're not faking them. It's just that it doesn't really influence their daily behaviour all that much. Generally people are motivated by the incentives of the moment, emotion of the moment, and that kind of thing. I am no exception to this by the way. People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is, which may or may not be religious) that they're also a good person. I'm not saying there is zero correlation for all people, but typically it's very small at best, if it even exists at all.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Wasn't there a study of ethicists which pointed out that even ethicists were not particularly more ethical in their day to day behavior? More and more, I have come to regard what people state as their beliefs or guiding principles as some kind of mission statement buried on a corporate website. It's more congruent with reality.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  Related, started realizing that "being a principled person" doesn't really mean "having (stated) principles", it means belief that you can (and should) have principles that you're trying to apply consistently and continuously. Lots of people have principles. Not so many people are principled.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Your actual principles are demonstrated by how you act when nobody is looking.
  - smcin 3y ago
    Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? Anyway the UK Fujitsu/Postmaster scandal is about a huge chain of dishonest human behavior, not bugs in software.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      > Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? then you're not a principled person, that's why actions speak louder than words.
      - smcin 3y ago
        But noone external to the contents of their head can know that. It's unknowable to all the rest of us. (The only thing the rest of us can tell is they might be confused, incoherent, have a weak, inconsistent or just idiosyncratic set of principles, etc.) See the author interview of Robert Greene on "Exploring Human Nature" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Being principled would preclude you from changing those principles to excuse your own bad behavior. Put another way, if you were to do this, then you weren't really principled in the first place, were you? And it's not like people don't say out loud that they are a certain way, and then act against that. There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated.
      - smcin 3y ago
        But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is) that they're also a good person. IIUC, there are a few aspects of Christian theology that muddy this issue a bit. I'm probably a bit wrong, so I'd be grateful for any corrections: 1) Christians believe in progressive sanctification. I.e., the Holy Spirit works, over time, to make Christians more like Jesus. So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. 2) Not everyone professing to be a Christian truly is [0]. As an agnostic, those issues have frustrated my efforts to decide if Christianity generally true. [0] https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    >So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. Only if I accept their beliefs as accurate.
    - ACow_Adonis 3y ago
      Or even their professions of belief to actually be something approaching truthful. But there are many incentives, both on a self-deceptive psychology level, and on a societal-wide level, for wanting to be seen as a virtuous and forthright person irrespective of one's actual behaviours or beliefs.
    - labster 3y ago
      You shouldn’t have to accept the beliefs, just the virtues, if it’s a religion with a stated goal of making people virtuous (excluding some polytheistic faiths, for instance).
      - kelnos 3y ago
        The poster upthread said that the mechanism for becoming better people was that the Holy Spirit makes it so. If the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, then the only mechanism for self-improvement is one's own ability to make those improvements, consciously. Virtues alone don't make people better. Doing the hard work to introspect and actually make yourself better... that's what makes you better.
- deepsun 3y ago
  Yep, except for the cases when some group of believers becomes so obsessed and intolerable, that they pack belongings and go do great things like founding Providence or Salt Lake City in the middle of a desert. Those deeds are very respectable IMO.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    It’s pretty impressive, right? I don’t think if you took random New Yorkers and dumped them into that same situation they would have achieved the same outcomes.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      you don't think other groups would have fought for survival?
      - deepsun 3y ago
        Other groups would adapt to their local community, blend in, so there would be no need to move out and found countries.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        I think everyone would have fought for survival. But there is a difference between survival, and creating an orderly and prosperous civilization in harsh surroundings.
- taeric 3y ago
  I've found it is easier than that. If a system is setup so that professing a belief will get someone a benefit, then you will find a ton of people claiming said belief. Now, there are also people that will act counter to their beliefs for other reasons. Sometimes for reasons you don't know. But that is, largely, a different thing.
linkjuice4all 3y ago
It's generous of you to assume that someone's religious affiliation would have any impact on how they conduct their professional lives. Perhaps she should consider working within her preferred religious organization and leave the job open to people whose ethics are more closely aligned with their customers (in this case the presumably secular government of the UK) otherwise people might mistake her as a greedy self-centered plutocrat.
bedobi 3y ago
> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon lol, in my experience... well, let me not finish that sentence
- nihonthrowaway 3y ago
  As a Christian, I have learned to be in my guard when business partners tell me about their Christianity. Or any other way of signaling their self-proported ethics.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    I'll go so far as to say anyone who mentions it in a business context (or especially leads with it) is almost certainly going to be some form of scam. If it's anything beyond a little add in the church bulletin or a small fish on a truck, it's probably indicative.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    My gut feeling: Being Christian is a very weak signal. Telling people that you're Christian (in a context where it's not important to do so) strongly signals a desire for social prominence, which is itself usually a bad sign. I expect this holds for other religions too, I just don't have much experience there.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > Telling people that you're Christian (in a context where it's not important to do so) strongly signals a desire for social prominence, which is itself usually a bad sign. This happens just about everywhere, including right here on HN.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
    In Matthew 6 Jesus forbids praying in public, like the hypocrites did, and instead commands Christains to pray where only the "father" can see them. Overt displays of piety by Christians are the original meaning of the word "hypocrisy", they claim to be Christian but display their supposed piety for public reward in direct contradiction to Jesus's command.
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
How is that relevant, other than making him a bit of more a hypocrite?
- kitd 3y ago
  Her
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
Seriously now, with all this information now available, shouldn't all the people that lied and rewrote statements be prosecuted for perjury?
- thinkingemote 3y ago
  2 of them are being investigated by the Met Police for perjury right now. Not much info right now and its being paused whilst the inquiry is going on.
- qwertox 3y ago
  "I'm sorry, I don't remember". But yes, they should and probably will be. But just for show.
- okokisay 3y ago
  This should be the case, and as sibling comments notes, 2 of them are being investigated. Unfortunately though, police forces around the world are not tasked with solving and prosecuting cases like this, which involve at least, extreme malfeasance, and more likely, malice with the goal of protecting oneself within X public/private institute they have a position in. This is a massively high profile case, so it will get some attention. Instead the task is for the police is increasingly to mediate minor interpersonal disputes between individuals (easy wins) and ignore anything bigger and more complicated.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon At the risk of making a No True Scotsman argument, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not she truly is a Christian. The only conclusion I can really draw from this is that she apparently acted in a way that's not consistent with Christian ideals.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  She acted just like a person with Christian ideals.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    > She acted just like a person with Christian ideals. How so?
- kelnos 3y ago
  The main conclusion I draw from this is that people will generally do whatever they want or feel they need to do, and their religious beliefs or affiliations continue to not really matter all that much. > she apparently acted in a way that's not consistent with Christian ideals Considering that "Christian ideals", depending on whom you ask, can include some pretty bad things, I don't think this matters all that much.
liveoneggs 3y ago
The CEO Priest is a head scratcher all by itself > I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Absolutely. Another example: people are routinely sent to jail based on highly sensitive field drug tests which have significant rates of false positives.
surfingdino 3y ago
If you want to turn one's life into living hell, it helps to ask a priest for help.
worik 3y ago
> Bugs are inevitable. Yes But accounting software that gets totals wrong is not inevitable Entirely avoidable
- dumbfounder 3y ago
  And can't the numbers be, I dunno, audited?!!?!!? WTF. Like, did all these numbers just get spit out to a jury and then these people were prosecuted? How in the hell?????
  - golem14 3y ago
    I mean, the DOD/Pentagon has not been able to finish an audit and account for their finances to the GAO (General Accounting Office) for many years now. There's a proposal that they will be able to pass a clean audit in 2027. Just sayin' ...
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    I'm not sure yet, but my impression is that the "Single Source of Truth" was an append-only message-list, written periodically to write-only CD-ROM. This was difficult to query, so extracts were pulled down to an investigator's workstation, to be processed into spreadsheet format, that the prosecutors and auditors could consume. That conversion to spreadsheet-format was also unreliable, and required human intervention. So the data presented to the court wasn't the raw Single Source of Truth, but rather had been through a dodgy extraction process, in which human error was possible, and which resulted in Excel spreadsheets with hacked macros for "fixing" errors. Excel itself is not famous for it's reliability and trustworthiness as accounting software.
alfalfasprout 3y ago
In general, as much as we trash on the US judicial system the UK judicial system makes it even harder to have any sort of recourse in a situation like this.
hermitcrab 3y ago
>What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon Because Priests have never done anything bad before?
ijhuygft776 3y ago
> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organization at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon Why does that bother you? It's just a bunch of lies too.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> falsified evidence I haven't heard any testimony that would lead to that conclusion (yet). There does seem to have been routine falsification of records; "everyone" knew the system was buggy, so there were standard procedures for correcting incorrect records. When those procedures failed, and the records became even more incorrect as a result, PO managers just gave up and blamed the subpostmasters.

arp242 3y ago

I have generally found that there's not that much relation between people's stated beliefs and their actual every-day behaviour. By and large, I do think their beliefs are genuine and heart-felt, and that they're not faking them. It's just that it doesn't really influence their daily behaviour all that much. Generally people are motivated by the incentives of the moment, emotion of the moment, and that kind of thing. I am no exception to this by the way. People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is, which may or may not be religious) that they're also a good person. I'm not saying there is zero correlation for all people, but typically it's very small at best, if it even exists at all.

at_a_remove 3y ago
Wasn't there a study of ethicists which pointed out that even ethicists were not particularly more ethical in their day to day behavior? More and more, I have come to regard what people state as their beliefs or guiding principles as some kind of mission statement buried on a corporate website. It's more congruent with reality.
RangerScience 3y ago
Related, started realizing that "being a principled person" doesn't really mean "having (stated) principles", it means belief that you can (and should) have principles that you're trying to apply consistently and continuously. Lots of people have principles. Not so many people are principled.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Your actual principles are demonstrated by how you act when nobody is looking.
- smcin 3y ago
  Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? Anyway the UK Fujitsu/Postmaster scandal is about a huge chain of dishonest human behavior, not bugs in software.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? then you're not a principled person, that's why actions speak louder than words.
    - smcin 3y ago
      But noone external to the contents of their head can know that. It's unknowable to all the rest of us. (The only thing the rest of us can tell is they might be confused, incoherent, have a weak, inconsistent or just idiosyncratic set of principles, etc.) See the author interview of Robert Greene on "Exploring Human Nature" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Being principled would preclude you from changing those principles to excuse your own bad behavior. Put another way, if you were to do this, then you weren't really principled in the first place, were you? And it's not like people don't say out loud that they are a certain way, and then act against that. There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated.
    - smcin 3y ago
      But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is) that they're also a good person. IIUC, there are a few aspects of Christian theology that muddy this issue a bit. I'm probably a bit wrong, so I'd be grateful for any corrections: 1) Christians believe in progressive sanctification. I.e., the Holy Spirit works, over time, to make Christians more like Jesus. So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. 2) Not everyone professing to be a Christian truly is [0]. As an agnostic, those issues have frustrated my efforts to decide if Christianity generally true. [0] https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  >So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. Only if I accept their beliefs as accurate.
  - ACow_Adonis 3y ago
    Or even their professions of belief to actually be something approaching truthful. But there are many incentives, both on a self-deceptive psychology level, and on a societal-wide level, for wanting to be seen as a virtuous and forthright person irrespective of one's actual behaviours or beliefs.
  - labster 3y ago
    You shouldn’t have to accept the beliefs, just the virtues, if it’s a religion with a stated goal of making people virtuous (excluding some polytheistic faiths, for instance).
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The poster upthread said that the mechanism for becoming better people was that the Holy Spirit makes it so. If the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, then the only mechanism for self-improvement is one's own ability to make those improvements, consciously. Virtues alone don't make people better. Doing the hard work to introspect and actually make yourself better... that's what makes you better.
deepsun 3y ago
Yep, except for the cases when some group of believers becomes so obsessed and intolerable, that they pack belongings and go do great things like founding Providence or Salt Lake City in the middle of a desert. Those deeds are very respectable IMO.
- rayiner 3y ago
  It’s pretty impressive, right? I don’t think if you took random New Yorkers and dumped them into that same situation they would have achieved the same outcomes.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    you don't think other groups would have fought for survival?
    - deepsun 3y ago
      Other groups would adapt to their local community, blend in, so there would be no need to move out and found countries.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      I think everyone would have fought for survival. But there is a difference between survival, and creating an orderly and prosperous civilization in harsh surroundings.
taeric 3y ago
I've found it is easier than that. If a system is setup so that professing a belief will get someone a benefit, then you will find a ton of people claiming said belief. Now, there are also people that will act counter to their beliefs for other reasons. Sometimes for reasons you don't know. But that is, largely, a different thing.

linkjuice4all 3y ago

It's generous of you to assume that someone's religious affiliation would have any impact on how they conduct their professional lives. Perhaps she should consider working within her preferred religious organization and leave the job open to people whose ethics are more closely aligned with their customers (in this case the presumably secular government of the UK) otherwise people might mistake her as a greedy self-centered plutocrat.

bedobi 3y ago

> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon lol, in my experience... well, let me not finish that sentence

nihonthrowaway 3y ago
As a Christian, I have learned to be in my guard when business partners tell me about their Christianity. Or any other way of signaling their self-proported ethics.
- bombcar 3y ago
  I'll go so far as to say anyone who mentions it in a business context (or especially leads with it) is almost certainly going to be some form of scam. If it's anything beyond a little add in the church bulletin or a small fish on a truck, it's probably indicative.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  My gut feeling: Being Christian is a very weak signal. Telling people that you're Christian (in a context where it's not important to do so) strongly signals a desire for social prominence, which is itself usually a bad sign. I expect this holds for other religions too, I just don't have much experience there.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > Telling people that you're Christian (in a context where it's not important to do so) strongly signals a desire for social prominence, which is itself usually a bad sign. This happens just about everywhere, including right here on HN.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  In Matthew 6 Jesus forbids praying in public, like the hypocrites did, and instead commands Christains to pray where only the "father" can see them. Overt displays of piety by Christians are the original meaning of the word "hypocrisy", they claim to be Christian but display their supposed piety for public reward in direct contradiction to Jesus's command.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago

How is that relevant, other than making him a bit of more a hypocrite?

kitd 3y ago
Her

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

Seriously now, with all this information now available, shouldn't all the people that lied and rewrote statements be prosecuted for perjury?

thinkingemote 3y ago
2 of them are being investigated by the Met Police for perjury right now. Not much info right now and its being paused whilst the inquiry is going on.
qwertox 3y ago
"I'm sorry, I don't remember". But yes, they should and probably will be. But just for show.
okokisay 3y ago
This should be the case, and as sibling comments notes, 2 of them are being investigated. Unfortunately though, police forces around the world are not tasked with solving and prosecuting cases like this, which involve at least, extreme malfeasance, and more likely, malice with the goal of protecting oneself within X public/private institute they have a position in. This is a massively high profile case, so it will get some attention. Instead the task is for the police is increasingly to mediate minor interpersonal disputes between individuals (easy wins) and ignore anything bigger and more complicated.

CoastalCoder 3y ago

> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon At the risk of making a No True Scotsman argument, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not she truly is a Christian. The only conclusion I can really draw from this is that she apparently acted in a way that's not consistent with Christian ideals.

InCityDreams 3y ago
She acted just like a person with Christian ideals.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > She acted just like a person with Christian ideals. How so?
kelnos 3y ago
The main conclusion I draw from this is that people will generally do whatever they want or feel they need to do, and their religious beliefs or affiliations continue to not really matter all that much. > she apparently acted in a way that's not consistent with Christian ideals Considering that "Christian ideals", depending on whom you ask, can include some pretty bad things, I don't think this matters all that much.

liveoneggs 3y ago

The CEO Priest is a head scratcher all by itself > I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Absolutely. Another example: people are routinely sent to jail based on highly sensitive field drug tests which have significant rates of false positives.

surfingdino 3y ago

If you want to turn one's life into living hell, it helps to ask a priest for help.

worik 3y ago

> Bugs are inevitable. Yes But accounting software that gets totals wrong is not inevitable Entirely avoidable

dumbfounder 3y ago
And can't the numbers be, I dunno, audited?!!?!!? WTF. Like, did all these numbers just get spit out to a jury and then these people were prosecuted? How in the hell?????
- golem14 3y ago
  I mean, the DOD/Pentagon has not been able to finish an audit and account for their finances to the GAO (General Accounting Office) for many years now. There's a proposal that they will be able to pass a clean audit in 2027. Just sayin' ...
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  I'm not sure yet, but my impression is that the "Single Source of Truth" was an append-only message-list, written periodically to write-only CD-ROM. This was difficult to query, so extracts were pulled down to an investigator's workstation, to be processed into spreadsheet format, that the prosecutors and auditors could consume. That conversion to spreadsheet-format was also unreliable, and required human intervention. So the data presented to the court wasn't the raw Single Source of Truth, but rather had been through a dodgy extraction process, in which human error was possible, and which resulted in Excel spreadsheets with hacked macros for "fixing" errors. Excel itself is not famous for it's reliability and trustworthiness as accounting software.

alfalfasprout 3y ago

In general, as much as we trash on the US judicial system the UK judicial system makes it even harder to have any sort of recourse in a situation like this.

hermitcrab 3y ago

>What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon Because Priests have never done anything bad before?

ijhuygft776 3y ago

> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organization at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon Why does that bother you? It's just a bunch of lies too.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> falsified evidence I haven't heard any testimony that would lead to that conclusion (yet). There does seem to have been routine falsification of records; "everyone" knew the system was buggy, so there were standard procedures for correcting incorrect records. When those procedures failed, and the records became even more incorrect as a result, PO managers just gave up and blamed the subpostmasters.