4 ms·

The title is kinda clickbait From the article > he believed that the “real issue” was the way criminal prosecutions of post office operators had been handled

The title is kinda clickbait From the article > he believed that the “real issue” was the way criminal prosecutions of post office operators had been handled by the state-owned body. And he's not wrong in that sense. The only reason innocent Postmasters were held liable was because of the horrid internal policies of the Post Office that decided to explicitly treat software as infallible. Post Office Ltd is equally as liable as Fujitsu imo.

chrisjj 2y ago
HN title or linked title? Latter is: Ex-Fujitsu executive says he feels ‘aggrieved’ by damage done to Horizon’s reputation
hyperman1 2y ago
This is an executive doing his job. There is a big problem so he rephrases it in a very plausible way as somebody else's fault.
chrisjj 2y ago
> The only reason innocent Postmasters were held liable was because of the horrid internal policies of the Post Office Untrue. They were suspected liable solely on the basis of Horizon data and found liable in some cases on the basis of false evidence from Fujitsu. "False evidence by Post Office’s expert contradicted his own report" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68857142 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68857142
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Fair point. I'd edit my comment to include this fact but I can't.
SilverBirch 2y ago
I think that's being rather generous. Yes, the Post Office was culpable in their role pretending the software was infallible and pursuing Subpostmasters to such an extend, but Fujitsu were equally culpable. A number of Post Office people have testified that Fujitsu mis-represented the capabilities of the software, the fallibility and the access by Fujitsu staff. I'm sure there was a very juicy contract behind all this that drove the Post Office to pretend they hadn't spaffed away money on a broken system and for Fujitsu to cover up the shortcomings in an effort to avoid any financial penalties.

chrisjj 2y ago

HN title or linked title? Latter is: Ex-Fujitsu executive says he feels ‘aggrieved’ by damage done to Horizon’s reputation

hyperman1 2y ago

This is an executive doing his job. There is a big problem so he rephrases it in a very plausible way as somebody else's fault.

chrisjj 2y ago

> The only reason innocent Postmasters were held liable was because of the horrid internal policies of the Post Office Untrue. They were suspected liable solely on the basis of Horizon data and found liable in some cases on the basis of false evidence from Fujitsu. "False evidence by Post Office’s expert contradicted his own report" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68857142 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68857142

alephnerd 2y ago
Fair point. I'd edit my comment to include this fact but I can't.

SilverBirch 2y ago

I think that's being rather generous. Yes, the Post Office was culpable in their role pretending the software was infallible and pursuing Subpostmasters to such an extend, but Fujitsu were equally culpable. A number of Post Office people have testified that Fujitsu mis-represented the capabilities of the software, the fallibility and the access by Fujitsu staff. I'm sure there was a very juicy contract behind all this that drove the Post Office to pretend they hadn't spaffed away money on a broken system and for Fujitsu to cover up the shortcomings in an effort to avoid any financial penalties.