3 ms·

I think the more important variable is how many subpostmasters there are. If there are millions then 700 is impressive.

londons_explore 3y ago
As of 2023, there were 6727 subpostmasters. So about 10% committed fraud. Seems a little high - but I could believe it if the subpostmasters are the local "boss", handling cash, and are supposed to pay 'the blokes in London' who they never meet. Also, most subpostmasters had many employees - and I believe if any one of their employees was commiting fraud/stealing money, then it was the sub postmaster responsible - so that 10% number might actually only be 1% if every branch had 10 people involved in the running of it.
- was_a_dev 3y ago
  It was the arrogance that they thought that these subpostmasters had been doing this for years, and just been caught out by their new computer system. The contempt for their staff is insane
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > The contempt for their staff is insane Subpostmasters are not Post Office staff; they are self-employed shopkeepers, who sign a contract with the PO to run the office in a part of their shop. I suspect that part of the contempt is precisely because the subpostmasters are not PO managers who have struggled up the greasy Post Office management pole. They are "civilians", and bureaucrats often despise civilians.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  I think this is too generous a take given the facts we know that happened. First, the time period we’re talking about here is 16 years. You’re telling me that the post office in 16 years couldn’t figure out how 10% of their branches were having persistent problems with their counts for 16 years! What business operates this way when dealing with such large amounts of money. At a minimum even if it was legit fraud by the subpostmasters this would be an indictment of the competence of the Post Office in managing the offices. Then there’s gems like this: > Some subpostmasters noticed the new system reporting false shortfalls, sometimes for thousands of pounds, but the Post Office insisted that the system was robust and, when shortfalls occurred, prosecuted the subpostmasters or forced them to make good the amounts, as required by their contract. Then an audit that was disputed and ignored: > In 2012, as a result of pressure from campaigners and Members of Parliament, the Post Office appointed forensic accountants Second Sight to conduct an investigation into Horizon. Second Sight concluded that Horizon contained faults that could result in accounting discrepancies, but the Post Office insisted that there were no systemic problems with the software. Finally, the most egregious thing is that even if you go back in time and are an honest player, as the convictions start happening more and more often, maybe at some point you go and ask the question “what changed in 1999 when we started prosecuting and why weren’t we catching this fraud before? Did we become better at it somehow?” Actually it corresponds to the rollout of the system. It’s possible of course that this system added new auditing capabilities that didn’t exist before but honestly 10% is still ridiculously high. Ultimately, the facts of the case are pretty clear this is bad faith from the Post Office (and maybe Fujitsu) top to bottom. There’s no point playing hypotheticals with good faith actors when the Post Office even had audits showing the software was buggy and the response was to dispute the audits they themselves contracted. It’s beyond the pale.
vlovich123 3y ago
Couldn’t find the exact number, but anywhere from 9k-12k according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Limited#Services https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Limited#Services That’s ~8.5% of their subpostmasters that were arrested (the actual number according to Wikipedia is 900 not 700). That seems really high to me. Also I think you meant to say that 700 out of millions would be unimpressive instead of impressive right?
- conductr 3y ago
  Those are positions. The roster is constantly churning and this spanned several years. Either way, it’s apparent the truth didn’t want to be known. I’m actually curious why these people were pursued if in theory everyone could have been. It’s like the head guy could just victimize people at will. Was he just having some sick fun or coming down on specific people for some reason.

As of 2023, there were 6727 subpostmasters. So about 10% committed fraud. Seems a little high - but I could believe it if the subpostmasters are the local "boss", handling cash, and are supposed to pay 'the blokes in London' who they never meet. Also, most subpostmasters had many employees - and I believe if any one of their employees was commiting fraud/stealing money, then it was the sub postmaster responsible - so that 10% number might actually only be 1% if every branch had 10 people involved in the running of it.

was_a_dev 3y ago
It was the arrogance that they thought that these subpostmasters had been doing this for years, and just been caught out by their new computer system. The contempt for their staff is insane
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > The contempt for their staff is insane Subpostmasters are not Post Office staff; they are self-employed shopkeepers, who sign a contract with the PO to run the office in a part of their shop. I suspect that part of the contempt is precisely because the subpostmasters are not PO managers who have struggled up the greasy Post Office management pole. They are "civilians", and bureaucrats often despise civilians.
vlovich123 3y ago
I think this is too generous a take given the facts we know that happened. First, the time period we’re talking about here is 16 years. You’re telling me that the post office in 16 years couldn’t figure out how 10% of their branches were having persistent problems with their counts for 16 years! What business operates this way when dealing with such large amounts of money. At a minimum even if it was legit fraud by the subpostmasters this would be an indictment of the competence of the Post Office in managing the offices. Then there’s gems like this: > Some subpostmasters noticed the new system reporting false shortfalls, sometimes for thousands of pounds, but the Post Office insisted that the system was robust and, when shortfalls occurred, prosecuted the subpostmasters or forced them to make good the amounts, as required by their contract. Then an audit that was disputed and ignored: > In 2012, as a result of pressure from campaigners and Members of Parliament, the Post Office appointed forensic accountants Second Sight to conduct an investigation into Horizon. Second Sight concluded that Horizon contained faults that could result in accounting discrepancies, but the Post Office insisted that there were no systemic problems with the software. Finally, the most egregious thing is that even if you go back in time and are an honest player, as the convictions start happening more and more often, maybe at some point you go and ask the question “what changed in 1999 when we started prosecuting and why weren’t we catching this fraud before? Did we become better at it somehow?” Actually it corresponds to the rollout of the system. It’s possible of course that this system added new auditing capabilities that didn’t exist before but honestly 10% is still ridiculously high. Ultimately, the facts of the case are pretty clear this is bad faith from the Post Office (and maybe Fujitsu) top to bottom. There’s no point playing hypotheticals with good faith actors when the Post Office even had audits showing the software was buggy and the response was to dispute the audits they themselves contracted. It’s beyond the pale.

vlovich123 3y ago

Couldn’t find the exact number, but anywhere from 9k-12k according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Limited#Services https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Limited#Services That’s ~8.5% of their subpostmasters that were arrested (the actual number according to Wikipedia is 900 not 700). That seems really high to me. Also I think you meant to say that 700 out of millions would be unimpressive instead of impressive right?

conductr 3y ago
Those are positions. The roster is constantly churning and this spanned several years. Either way, it’s apparent the truth didn’t want to be known. I’m actually curious why these people were pursued if in theory everyone could have been. It’s like the head guy could just victimize people at will. Was he just having some sick fun or coming down on specific people for some reason.