3 ms·

I consider “the full blame should be on the Post Office, and those involved.” a dangerous position. A systems must hold even if individuals fail or behave in ma

I consider “the full blame should be on the Post Office, and those involved.” a dangerous position. A systems must hold even if individuals fail or behave in malicious ways, and focusing strongly on individual culpability tends to overshadow the failures of the system. It’s very easy to go on from there to “If those individuals had just acted properly, none of this would have happened.” I don’t mean to diminish the culpability of all those involved in the coverup, but the system needs fixing more than they need punishment. Fixing the system has a chance of preventing future harm, punishment does not, at least not to the same extend.

lupire 3y ago
What on earth are you talking about? The system was working, until a few individuals actively sabotaged it for personal gain. This wasn't cogs in a machine that went awry, this was intentional malicious behavior. Handwaving about "fixing a system" is begging th question. No system made by humans can resist malice of those humans.
- Xylakant 3y ago
  The system was obviously very much not working. Some of the individuals that caused this acted on negligence, some careless ass-covering, some probably maliciously for their own gain. But there are a few key points that made it essentially impossible for the accused postmasters to defend themselves against the allegations, among them as a key point the presumption that computer records are correct and must be challenged by the defendant, not proven by prosecution. And to challenge these, you’d need to have the internal records that you can’t access as defendant - no surprise that many of the accused entered a plea deal, knowing that they’d never stand a chance in a trial. Then, the Post office boasting powers to investigate and bring cases, while not being held to the same standards as the Crown Prosecution, meaning no independent review, no challenge. This basically made all efforts to defend hopeless, and you can see the results. The cases did turn on the outstanding work of a few heroic individuals and a stroke of luck - if not for those, this all would have gone away quietly, with the postmaster convicted, broken, silenced. A system that allows for that is broken, and the same thing will happen again, unless the shortfalls are addressed, because careless, negligent and even somewhat malicious individuals are plenty, and heroic people defending are rare. I can recommend reading this, which sheds some light on the legal details that made the scandal possible at this scale. https://emptycity.substack.com/p/how-the-legal-system-made-it-so-easy https://emptycity.substack.com/p/how-the-legal-system-made-i...
- staunton 3y ago
  > No system made by humans can resist malice of those humans. Some systems have a better chance of resisting a few malicious actors within than others. There's no reason not to do both: punish the people who broke the law and also think how in the future we might prevent such a disaster happening again (or expose it sooner, or minimize the damage it can do)

lupire 3y ago

What on earth are you talking about? The system was working, until a few individuals actively sabotaged it for personal gain. This wasn't cogs in a machine that went awry, this was intentional malicious behavior. Handwaving about "fixing a system" is begging th question. No system made by humans can resist malice of those humans.

Xylakant 3y ago
The system was obviously very much not working. Some of the individuals that caused this acted on negligence, some careless ass-covering, some probably maliciously for their own gain. But there are a few key points that made it essentially impossible for the accused postmasters to defend themselves against the allegations, among them as a key point the presumption that computer records are correct and must be challenged by the defendant, not proven by prosecution. And to challenge these, you’d need to have the internal records that you can’t access as defendant - no surprise that many of the accused entered a plea deal, knowing that they’d never stand a chance in a trial. Then, the Post office boasting powers to investigate and bring cases, while not being held to the same standards as the Crown Prosecution, meaning no independent review, no challenge. This basically made all efforts to defend hopeless, and you can see the results. The cases did turn on the outstanding work of a few heroic individuals and a stroke of luck - if not for those, this all would have gone away quietly, with the postmaster convicted, broken, silenced. A system that allows for that is broken, and the same thing will happen again, unless the shortfalls are addressed, because careless, negligent and even somewhat malicious individuals are plenty, and heroic people defending are rare. I can recommend reading this, which sheds some light on the legal details that made the scandal possible at this scale. https://emptycity.substack.com/p/how-the-legal-system-made-it-so-easy https://emptycity.substack.com/p/how-the-legal-system-made-i...
staunton 3y ago
> No system made by humans can resist malice of those humans. Some systems have a better chance of resisting a few malicious actors within than others. There's no reason not to do both: punish the people who broke the law and also think how in the future we might prevent such a disaster happening again (or expose it sooner, or minimize the damage it can do)