5 ms·

So far, to my knowledge, none of the people that botched this spent a day in jail. So what good are these inquiries that span years until they fade out of publi

So far, to my knowledge, none of the people that botched this spent a day in jail. So what good are these inquiries that span years until they fade out of public interest, maybe some people get a slap on the wrist and they move on with their lives like nothing happened while others had their lives ruined beyond repair?

ktallett 2y ago
Botched is being kind. Lied, cheated, and covered up to destroy people's lives when they knew at the least these people were working with a faulty system, at the most they knew these post masters were completely innocent.
whycome 2y ago
Gasp but the head had to give up her Order of the British Empire designation!
- petesergeant 2y ago
  And also missed out on a suggested Bishophood (this actually happened)
krisoft 2y ago
> what good are these inquiries that span years until they fade out of public interest That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries. They very slowly and methodically move forward until the public are either forgetting about the issue or "let bygones be bygones". Until then anyone who should be held accountable (criminally or politically) can answer that they cannot comment on the matter while the inquiries are ongoing. (which is in itself a way to ice the discussion while making it appear as if the person asking the question is out of order, and not the person not answering them) It is a delaying tactic by powerful people against less powerful in the society. Change my mind if you can.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries Strong disagree. I’d say these drip drip disclosures are swaying public opinion and we’ll end up in a position where the public are clamouring for blood.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    In the event that happens, it does not rule out krisoft's hypothesis about the purpose of these inquiries. I would point out that if criminal proceedings are a possibility, the presumption of innocence will have the consequences listed in krisoft's post, and while these consequences are convenient for the people and institutions directly and tangentially responsible, it does not follow that this convenience is the inquiry's only purpose. Is there a serious possibility of criminal prosecutions arising from this inquiry? if not, then conducting them as if that possibility existed might itself be seen as a delaying tactic.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions. If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.
      - mannykannot 2y ago
        I imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
      - krisoft 2y ago
        > I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?
arkh 2y ago
And that's why I hate the "they're paid more because they have more responsibility" when responsibility is just a farce. Get everyone from the bottom to the top (who were responsible for their people) and dish out prison sentence. Just add from bottom to top: someone hid some data? 2 years. Their manager? How many people under them got sentenced? 4 then that's 8 years for mister "I got responsibilities". Go up the chain to the top decider.
graemep 2y ago
The other thing that has not happened are the necessary changes to legislation and procedures with regard to expert witnesses to prevent this happening again and again. I wonder how many other people have been wrongfully convicted or otherwise damaged (e.g. financially) because "the computer says so"?

ktallett 2y ago

Botched is being kind. Lied, cheated, and covered up to destroy people's lives when they knew at the least these people were working with a faulty system, at the most they knew these post masters were completely innocent.

whycome 2y ago

Gasp but the head had to give up her Order of the British Empire designation!

petesergeant 2y ago
And also missed out on a suggested Bishophood (this actually happened)

krisoft 2y ago

> what good are these inquiries that span years until they fade out of public interest That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries. They very slowly and methodically move forward until the public are either forgetting about the issue or "let bygones be bygones". Until then anyone who should be held accountable (criminally or politically) can answer that they cannot comment on the matter while the inquiries are ongoing. (which is in itself a way to ice the discussion while making it appear as if the person asking the question is out of order, and not the person not answering them) It is a delaying tactic by powerful people against less powerful in the society. Change my mind if you can.

petesergeant 2y ago
> That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries Strong disagree. I’d say these drip drip disclosures are swaying public opinion and we’ll end up in a position where the public are clamouring for blood.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  In the event that happens, it does not rule out krisoft's hypothesis about the purpose of these inquiries. I would point out that if criminal proceedings are a possibility, the presumption of innocence will have the consequences listed in krisoft's post, and while these consequences are convenient for the people and institutions directly and tangentially responsible, it does not follow that this convenience is the inquiry's only purpose. Is there a serious possibility of criminal prosecutions arising from this inquiry? if not, then conducting them as if that possibility existed might itself be seen as a delaying tactic.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions. If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      I imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?

arkh 2y ago

And that's why I hate the "they're paid more because they have more responsibility" when responsibility is just a farce. Get everyone from the bottom to the top (who were responsible for their people) and dish out prison sentence. Just add from bottom to top: someone hid some data? 2 years. Their manager? How many people under them got sentenced? 4 then that's 8 years for mister "I got responsibilities". Go up the chain to the top decider.

graemep 2y ago

The other thing that has not happened are the necessary changes to legislation and procedures with regard to expert witnesses to prevent this happening again and again. I wonder how many other people have been wrongfully convicted or otherwise damaged (e.g. financially) because "the computer says so"?