![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
All of the links to articles in Private Eye in the references go to the current issue. JezGrove ( talk) 22:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The link entitled "Some Post Office Horizon IT was 'unfit for purpose', investigators say" goes to the current issue. Nick Levine ( talk) 09:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.modernmann.co.uk/new/justicebynumbers might? want to be linked in here someplace? (An interview with one convicted postmaster and his wife.) Jbsegal ( talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This 2011 source in
Computer World says the Pathway project ".. was scrapped in 2000 after a dispute over the technology, resulting in a £180 million write-off. The same year, a renamed and expanded version of the project, now called Horizon and involving the same supplier, ICL (now Fujitsu), was announced. It modernised the Post Office counters network by installing PCs and other electronic equipment in 18,000 branches across the UK, at a cost of £1.4 billion. ... The National Audit Office consequently lambasted the Post Office for wasting as much as £881 million of taxpayers’ money as a result of the project change."
So it looks like the cost was at least £1.4 billion (plus the £180 million for Pathway). This does not include any of the Post Office's subsequent legal costs. And of course, over the next few years, the compensation now due to Post Office sub-post-masters and mistresses will probably take the total much higher. I wonder what a more realistic cost might eventually be.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
13:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Article is tagged on several scales as Start and Low. I think it deserves better. Nick Levine ( talk) 09:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Horizon scandal has widely been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history. The scandal (which seems to have no web page I can find) is surely more notable than the actual IT system involved yet it is covered as subsections on this webpage. It would surely be better to have its own webpage, see for example the Congressional_Post_Office_scandal. Alternatively rename this webpage. 51.9.50.245 ( talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The Great British Post Office Scandal
by @
Jacksoncowes: I don't think having a "the" at the start of the article name is usual unless it's part of the actual proper name of the thing covered (e.g.
The Great British Bake Off or
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which are the entities' actual names, but no "the" in descriptive titles such as
Campaign for the neologism "santorum"). Likewise, although Great British and Post Office are names of entities or attributive forms of state names, the word "scandal" would not be expected to be capitalised (see e.g.
Watergate scandal,
Dutch childcare benefits scandal) unless, again, it's part of the name of a work (e.g.
The Scandal (1943 film)). And although Great British Post Office scandal
wouldn't necessarily be an incorrect title, "Great British" as a demonym is not usually used in prosaic contexts (unless you're somehow trying to distinguish "from Great Britain (island)" from British in the sense of "of the United Kingdom"), and a more descriptive title such as British Post Office false convictions scandal
would be clearer. --
HarJIT (
talk)
13:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The Great British Post Office Scandal, isn't appropriate and should be changed ASAP. Popcornfud ( talk) 13:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The are three problems with the second sentence of the introduction. First, as far as I can tell, 'euphorism' is not a word; it seems likely that the author meant 'euphemism.' Second, even if 'euphemism' was intended, the sentence is a non sequitur and is out of place in an introduction. Third, I've searched the cited document for 'shareholder' and I can't see any euphemisms. On these three counts, I think the sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.44.49 ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks useful: Scandal at the Post Office: The Intersection of Law, Ethics and Politics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
With respect, I think @ Pol098: confuses job titles, types and honorifics. Police Officers PC Blogs and Sgt Brown are not differentiated by honorifics, and they are not different types. DC Smith is a police officer; perhaps a different type. HHJ (His or Her Honour) is a job title denoting rank (and the range of their powers). Mr Justice Fraser (his correct job title), by the removal of Mr, has been changed from a High Court judge to a Supreme Court Justice. Why leave in Lord Justice X, Y and Z, or other Mr Justices? Or Lord Falconer? The different powers of the different levels of courts, and how that has impacted the various different groups of victims, is germane to this scandal and any critical understanding of any past or future resolution. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The inquiry has just (I'm following live tweets from Nick Wallis) heard about a 2002 Brentford Gazette interview with SPM Baljit Sethi, in which he said he thought Horizon was at fault. Can anyone track this article down? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Who were the CEOs from the time Horizon was installed until Vennells took over? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Pol098: I am struggling with this heading. There is a significant possibility of a variety of future actions - not just civil and criminal - and not just against the PO - and perhaps not just legal actions. Civil, criminal and/or professional disciplinary actions could be commenced against PO staff, Fujitsu staff, lawyers and others involved in the widest sense. Does "Possible further legal/disciplinary actions" fit? Jacksoncowes ( talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps no one can read this page with complete understanding, but its authors all deserve commendation for laying out all its many details for public scrutiny! Charles Clark ( talk) 02:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Horizon (IT system) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Horizon (IT system) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
00:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This commendable and well-maintained article includes what seem to be exact quotations from court proceedings, but in a few cases the quotations do not seem to make sense, possibly because of omitted words. (I appreciate that such words might have been omitted from the original written legal judgement(s) and the text is reproduced here in good faith.)
The last point (4) is a simple suggestion for consistency.
1. The 3rd paragraph in Section 1 "Overview" has wording ...transactions, to undermine... . Perhaps this should read ...transactions, and to undermine... or ...transactions, and therefore to undermine... .
2. In Section 3, "Court cases", in the account of the appeal R v Christopher Trousdale & Others - December 2020, the 2nd paragraph quoting of Judge Taylor ends with the words ...and stay further proceedings an abuse of process.
Should this have read ...and stay further proceedings as an abuse of process ?
3. In Section 3, "Court cases", in the account of Judgment No. 3 (Common Issues) in Bates & Others v. Post Office Ltd., the 4th paragraph quoting Judge Fraser includes the words The statement that it is prepared to preserve documents – as though that were a concession – and the obdurate to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them, is extremely worrying.
Was a word, perhaps refusal or unwillingness , accidentally omitted between obdurate and to, shown in bold above ?
4. Occasional use of Ors instead of Others in the titles of legal cases. This may be an acceptable legal abbreviation, but its very occasional use here seems inconsistent. Applies to Bates & Ors in the 3rd paragraph of Section 1 "Overview", and also to the last case Felstead & Ors in the show/hide "Quick reference table" within Section 3 "Court cases". AconUK ( talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There were some interesting stats in the closing caption of
I think it would be worth including these - perhaps in a side bar - in the article, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In the overview, we have:
While this is no doubt true (and quoted verbatim by the Doughty Street resource), those before 1999 cannot be because of Horizon, because that had not been rolled out.
The detail in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/658605/response/1576986/attach/4/FOI2020%2000186%20FOI%20Request%20Response.pdf tells the true story: that between 1991 and 1997 the rate of prosecutions per year was low, that is, a maximum of 10 in 1997. Between 1999 and 2012, between 37 and 78 prosecutions were made per year.
I believe it detracts from the argument to quote the https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/102gtzh/private-prosecutions-after-the-post-office-debacle report as the pre-1999 numbers are not immediately relevant, unless for comparison reasons. -- Matt Westwood 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Just related to the general structure and content of the article, I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience of legal proceedings. I'm struck by how many people were convicted while so few prosecutions have been quashed. Clearly, more convictions may be quashed - as he article notes. It seems, though, that a large number of those convicted pled guilty. I am more than aware that sometimes people who are not guilty of an offence plead guilty for various reasons, but some of these people went to prison and it is unusual that people should plead guilty to a charge so serious as to send them to prison when they believe they are not guilty. This is a material point, because the thrust of the article is that the convictions are wrong. This might be just my reading, and I don't mean to disrespect anyone wrongly convicted. But I do think that if there are to be so many references to wrongful convictions then there should be some references to guilty pleas since it is clearly very hard to overturn a verdict where there was a guilty plea. Finally, it is perfectly possible that other evidence of fraud was present in those cases where there was a guilty plea; we simply don't know. The number of people convicted of dishonesty did go up sharply after the introduction of the system, but that does not necessarily point towards the system itself; there is sometimes an uptick in fraud when a large new system, particularly with known faults, is introduced into any large organisation. I also find it a bit odd that there is no mention of the executives who came before the Paula Vennells; it's easy to see Vennell's liability, but why no mention of the executives in charge while the actual problems unfolded? Just some thoughts as I am listening to the latest news on the radio today. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 08:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but this subject deserves a better article. It's unwieldy, cluttered, has no cohesive narrative, and it's generally hard to read.
For example, the first section is called "Overview". Articles shouldn't have overview sections. The lead is the overview. So there's already a lump of redundancy and a confusing information hierarchy right from the beginning of the article body.
I will attempt to do some work on it myself, but I wanted to raise these issues here first, in case it motivates anyone to help out... Popcornfud ( talk) 17:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This article uses the American spelling "judgment" throughout. While I accept that an American legal case (e.g. Roe v Wade) should use that spelling, I really think we should stick with British English spellings in articles that are solely about English Law legal cases so can we use judgement, please? LumpiSpoerl ( talk) 12:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed this because the last thing the article needs at the moment is another section of "law student's case notes" and the references were not formatted. If anyone wants to reduce it to a properly referenced and formatted paragraph and put it somewhere in the Court section then go ahead. Southdevonian ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It needs cutting down, dramatically. As it is, it surely serves almost no readers who visit it. I've read Wikipedia entries on quantum physics topics that were more layman-friendly than this one. 92.5.200.8 ( talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead section doesn't mention that no prosecutions have been made against those responsible for the convictions. It is one of the key facts about the topic, so shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead section? It currently mentions that the Post Office is being investigated, and that a public inquiry is ongoing. That doesn't mean that readers would know that no prosecutions have been made. Opok2021 ( talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Same section, or similar passages, in twice. It needs a good proofread to see what's been duplicated word for word . 2A00:23C8:4F06:4F01:196D:D556:26BF:6412 ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This article uses several references to Computer Weekly articles. Most of them cannot be read without a 'corporate email address'. Does anyone know how to get access to read these please? -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
"The Post Office insisted" etc. – An office cannot insist, there are people that could and should be named that made those decisions. -- Anvilaquarius ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I think these words should be used in the lead: commonly described as "one of the UK’s worst miscarriages of justice". There seems to be a fair consensus in British reporting using these words and very similar to summarise it. Citations with very similar wording should be easy to compile. eg: [4] [5] [6]
Instead, the current lead uses this phrase: "an extensive series of individual miscarriages of justice". I don't think this page should be inventing it's own way to describe the scandal as a whole if differs in meaning from common reporting, and at least should have a citation for that wording. The current lead differs in meaning in a two respects:
1) It seeks to distance and disconnect each case from each other. The word "individual" might be interpreted as "isolated" despite the evidence being that they were precipitated by a common set of bugs in the same software and pressed unfairly by a single organisation with singular intent.
2) Unlike the common reporting, it doesn't provide the contextual severity and cultural segnificance. The common reporting uses a description positions the severity in respect to other miscarriages of justice in the UK (close to the top).
I'm not aware of any contention over the commonly reported description, so I think it would be fair for this page to use the same 2A00:23C6:B30F:AC01:F836:AC1E:E658:FD4C ( talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source on roll-out and number of post offices? At the moment they appear contradictory - 13,000 by 2001, then back to "at least" 11,500 (quote from Vennells) in 2013 and then eventually 18,000? In February 2001, the minister for competitiveness told Parliament that 17,650 post offices were connected and 18,500 would be by the end of March [7]. Southdevonian ( talk) 10:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that Alan Bates (subpostmaster) has been created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
By about 2022 the article the article was trying to cover events that had started about 20 years previously; but a scandal that then obviously still had a long way to run. The article was way over size. Many editors trimmed it and many tried to deal with the so-called ″aftermath″ which was in reality an ongoing scandal. We are at that stage again now, both in terms of the size (9779 words), and the fact that the scandal is clearly far from ending.
The analysis of causes of one of the significant heroes of this saga, Paul Marshal was:
Of the first some of this has, I think, been addressed but is not described in the article. For example, relatively recent statute required courts to take evidence from computers as unarguable. Has that been repealed? Of the second, see the work of Bristol University and others questioning the ethical and legal behaviour of all levels within the legal profession. The third and fourth are getting media attention and will increase. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 12:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Another gap in the article seems to be who provided the various components of the system. According to one of the Computer Weekly articles that I managed to get access to on archive the other day (although I can't find it again now with Google), Oracle, Microsoft, BT, and maybe others were involved in the project along side Fujitsu/ICL. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Southdevonian ( talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not about these edits, so please don't start debate over the content removal. I asked:
Do we have any such [particularly controversial or that which could be easily challenged] information in the lead?
it's in pretty bad shape- oh we all know. I might have to read up on the scandal and just take an angle-grinder to the article myself to make it at least readable. Kingsif ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. I can't see anything relevant on that page that isn't, or couldn't be, covered in the article. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead says that between 1999 and 2015 over 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted. Later in the article it says that by 2013 there were over 11,500 post offices using the system. Do we have any clues as to why (assuming each of the 900 were from different post offices) only around 8% of the post offices were affected if they all used the same software? -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Could someone knock up a timeline showing who was in charge and who was responsible government minister from 1999 to present day? 81.110.169.44 ( talk) 11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't Adam Crozier be mentioned (other than as currently in the title of a source) in the article? Our article on him has a paragraph about the scandal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is Peter Fraser (judge) identified as "Frasier J" throughout this article? Is that a common British practice, or some honorific, or ... ? It confused me a bit until I found the link for the name. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
All of the links to articles in Private Eye in the references go to the current issue. JezGrove ( talk) 22:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The link entitled "Some Post Office Horizon IT was 'unfit for purpose', investigators say" goes to the current issue. Nick Levine ( talk) 09:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.modernmann.co.uk/new/justicebynumbers might? want to be linked in here someplace? (An interview with one convicted postmaster and his wife.) Jbsegal ( talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This 2011 source in
Computer World says the Pathway project ".. was scrapped in 2000 after a dispute over the technology, resulting in a £180 million write-off. The same year, a renamed and expanded version of the project, now called Horizon and involving the same supplier, ICL (now Fujitsu), was announced. It modernised the Post Office counters network by installing PCs and other electronic equipment in 18,000 branches across the UK, at a cost of £1.4 billion. ... The National Audit Office consequently lambasted the Post Office for wasting as much as £881 million of taxpayers’ money as a result of the project change."
So it looks like the cost was at least £1.4 billion (plus the £180 million for Pathway). This does not include any of the Post Office's subsequent legal costs. And of course, over the next few years, the compensation now due to Post Office sub-post-masters and mistresses will probably take the total much higher. I wonder what a more realistic cost might eventually be.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
13:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Article is tagged on several scales as Start and Low. I think it deserves better. Nick Levine ( talk) 09:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Horizon scandal has widely been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history. The scandal (which seems to have no web page I can find) is surely more notable than the actual IT system involved yet it is covered as subsections on this webpage. It would surely be better to have its own webpage, see for example the Congressional_Post_Office_scandal. Alternatively rename this webpage. 51.9.50.245 ( talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The Great British Post Office Scandal
by @
Jacksoncowes: I don't think having a "the" at the start of the article name is usual unless it's part of the actual proper name of the thing covered (e.g.
The Great British Bake Off or
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which are the entities' actual names, but no "the" in descriptive titles such as
Campaign for the neologism "santorum"). Likewise, although Great British and Post Office are names of entities or attributive forms of state names, the word "scandal" would not be expected to be capitalised (see e.g.
Watergate scandal,
Dutch childcare benefits scandal) unless, again, it's part of the name of a work (e.g.
The Scandal (1943 film)). And although Great British Post Office scandal
wouldn't necessarily be an incorrect title, "Great British" as a demonym is not usually used in prosaic contexts (unless you're somehow trying to distinguish "from Great Britain (island)" from British in the sense of "of the United Kingdom"), and a more descriptive title such as British Post Office false convictions scandal
would be clearer. --
HarJIT (
talk)
13:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The Great British Post Office Scandal, isn't appropriate and should be changed ASAP. Popcornfud ( talk) 13:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The are three problems with the second sentence of the introduction. First, as far as I can tell, 'euphorism' is not a word; it seems likely that the author meant 'euphemism.' Second, even if 'euphemism' was intended, the sentence is a non sequitur and is out of place in an introduction. Third, I've searched the cited document for 'shareholder' and I can't see any euphemisms. On these three counts, I think the sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.44.49 ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks useful: Scandal at the Post Office: The Intersection of Law, Ethics and Politics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
With respect, I think @ Pol098: confuses job titles, types and honorifics. Police Officers PC Blogs and Sgt Brown are not differentiated by honorifics, and they are not different types. DC Smith is a police officer; perhaps a different type. HHJ (His or Her Honour) is a job title denoting rank (and the range of their powers). Mr Justice Fraser (his correct job title), by the removal of Mr, has been changed from a High Court judge to a Supreme Court Justice. Why leave in Lord Justice X, Y and Z, or other Mr Justices? Or Lord Falconer? The different powers of the different levels of courts, and how that has impacted the various different groups of victims, is germane to this scandal and any critical understanding of any past or future resolution. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The inquiry has just (I'm following live tweets from Nick Wallis) heard about a 2002 Brentford Gazette interview with SPM Baljit Sethi, in which he said he thought Horizon was at fault. Can anyone track this article down? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Who were the CEOs from the time Horizon was installed until Vennells took over? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Pol098: I am struggling with this heading. There is a significant possibility of a variety of future actions - not just civil and criminal - and not just against the PO - and perhaps not just legal actions. Civil, criminal and/or professional disciplinary actions could be commenced against PO staff, Fujitsu staff, lawyers and others involved in the widest sense. Does "Possible further legal/disciplinary actions" fit? Jacksoncowes ( talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps no one can read this page with complete understanding, but its authors all deserve commendation for laying out all its many details for public scrutiny! Charles Clark ( talk) 02:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Horizon (IT system) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Horizon (IT system) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
00:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This commendable and well-maintained article includes what seem to be exact quotations from court proceedings, but in a few cases the quotations do not seem to make sense, possibly because of omitted words. (I appreciate that such words might have been omitted from the original written legal judgement(s) and the text is reproduced here in good faith.)
The last point (4) is a simple suggestion for consistency.
1. The 3rd paragraph in Section 1 "Overview" has wording ...transactions, to undermine... . Perhaps this should read ...transactions, and to undermine... or ...transactions, and therefore to undermine... .
2. In Section 3, "Court cases", in the account of the appeal R v Christopher Trousdale & Others - December 2020, the 2nd paragraph quoting of Judge Taylor ends with the words ...and stay further proceedings an abuse of process.
Should this have read ...and stay further proceedings as an abuse of process ?
3. In Section 3, "Court cases", in the account of Judgment No. 3 (Common Issues) in Bates & Others v. Post Office Ltd., the 4th paragraph quoting Judge Fraser includes the words The statement that it is prepared to preserve documents – as though that were a concession – and the obdurate to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them, is extremely worrying.
Was a word, perhaps refusal or unwillingness , accidentally omitted between obdurate and to, shown in bold above ?
4. Occasional use of Ors instead of Others in the titles of legal cases. This may be an acceptable legal abbreviation, but its very occasional use here seems inconsistent. Applies to Bates & Ors in the 3rd paragraph of Section 1 "Overview", and also to the last case Felstead & Ors in the show/hide "Quick reference table" within Section 3 "Court cases". AconUK ( talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There were some interesting stats in the closing caption of
I think it would be worth including these - perhaps in a side bar - in the article, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In the overview, we have:
While this is no doubt true (and quoted verbatim by the Doughty Street resource), those before 1999 cannot be because of Horizon, because that had not been rolled out.
The detail in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/658605/response/1576986/attach/4/FOI2020%2000186%20FOI%20Request%20Response.pdf tells the true story: that between 1991 and 1997 the rate of prosecutions per year was low, that is, a maximum of 10 in 1997. Between 1999 and 2012, between 37 and 78 prosecutions were made per year.
I believe it detracts from the argument to quote the https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/102gtzh/private-prosecutions-after-the-post-office-debacle report as the pre-1999 numbers are not immediately relevant, unless for comparison reasons. -- Matt Westwood 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Just related to the general structure and content of the article, I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience of legal proceedings. I'm struck by how many people were convicted while so few prosecutions have been quashed. Clearly, more convictions may be quashed - as he article notes. It seems, though, that a large number of those convicted pled guilty. I am more than aware that sometimes people who are not guilty of an offence plead guilty for various reasons, but some of these people went to prison and it is unusual that people should plead guilty to a charge so serious as to send them to prison when they believe they are not guilty. This is a material point, because the thrust of the article is that the convictions are wrong. This might be just my reading, and I don't mean to disrespect anyone wrongly convicted. But I do think that if there are to be so many references to wrongful convictions then there should be some references to guilty pleas since it is clearly very hard to overturn a verdict where there was a guilty plea. Finally, it is perfectly possible that other evidence of fraud was present in those cases where there was a guilty plea; we simply don't know. The number of people convicted of dishonesty did go up sharply after the introduction of the system, but that does not necessarily point towards the system itself; there is sometimes an uptick in fraud when a large new system, particularly with known faults, is introduced into any large organisation. I also find it a bit odd that there is no mention of the executives who came before the Paula Vennells; it's easy to see Vennell's liability, but why no mention of the executives in charge while the actual problems unfolded? Just some thoughts as I am listening to the latest news on the radio today. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 08:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but this subject deserves a better article. It's unwieldy, cluttered, has no cohesive narrative, and it's generally hard to read.
For example, the first section is called "Overview". Articles shouldn't have overview sections. The lead is the overview. So there's already a lump of redundancy and a confusing information hierarchy right from the beginning of the article body.
I will attempt to do some work on it myself, but I wanted to raise these issues here first, in case it motivates anyone to help out... Popcornfud ( talk) 17:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This article uses the American spelling "judgment" throughout. While I accept that an American legal case (e.g. Roe v Wade) should use that spelling, I really think we should stick with British English spellings in articles that are solely about English Law legal cases so can we use judgement, please? LumpiSpoerl ( talk) 12:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed this because the last thing the article needs at the moment is another section of "law student's case notes" and the references were not formatted. If anyone wants to reduce it to a properly referenced and formatted paragraph and put it somewhere in the Court section then go ahead. Southdevonian ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It needs cutting down, dramatically. As it is, it surely serves almost no readers who visit it. I've read Wikipedia entries on quantum physics topics that were more layman-friendly than this one. 92.5.200.8 ( talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead section doesn't mention that no prosecutions have been made against those responsible for the convictions. It is one of the key facts about the topic, so shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead section? It currently mentions that the Post Office is being investigated, and that a public inquiry is ongoing. That doesn't mean that readers would know that no prosecutions have been made. Opok2021 ( talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Same section, or similar passages, in twice. It needs a good proofread to see what's been duplicated word for word . 2A00:23C8:4F06:4F01:196D:D556:26BF:6412 ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This article uses several references to Computer Weekly articles. Most of them cannot be read without a 'corporate email address'. Does anyone know how to get access to read these please? -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
"The Post Office insisted" etc. – An office cannot insist, there are people that could and should be named that made those decisions. -- Anvilaquarius ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I think these words should be used in the lead: commonly described as "one of the UK’s worst miscarriages of justice". There seems to be a fair consensus in British reporting using these words and very similar to summarise it. Citations with very similar wording should be easy to compile. eg: [4] [5] [6]
Instead, the current lead uses this phrase: "an extensive series of individual miscarriages of justice". I don't think this page should be inventing it's own way to describe the scandal as a whole if differs in meaning from common reporting, and at least should have a citation for that wording. The current lead differs in meaning in a two respects:
1) It seeks to distance and disconnect each case from each other. The word "individual" might be interpreted as "isolated" despite the evidence being that they were precipitated by a common set of bugs in the same software and pressed unfairly by a single organisation with singular intent.
2) Unlike the common reporting, it doesn't provide the contextual severity and cultural segnificance. The common reporting uses a description positions the severity in respect to other miscarriages of justice in the UK (close to the top).
I'm not aware of any contention over the commonly reported description, so I think it would be fair for this page to use the same 2A00:23C6:B30F:AC01:F836:AC1E:E658:FD4C ( talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source on roll-out and number of post offices? At the moment they appear contradictory - 13,000 by 2001, then back to "at least" 11,500 (quote from Vennells) in 2013 and then eventually 18,000? In February 2001, the minister for competitiveness told Parliament that 17,650 post offices were connected and 18,500 would be by the end of March [7]. Southdevonian ( talk) 10:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that Alan Bates (subpostmaster) has been created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
By about 2022 the article the article was trying to cover events that had started about 20 years previously; but a scandal that then obviously still had a long way to run. The article was way over size. Many editors trimmed it and many tried to deal with the so-called ″aftermath″ which was in reality an ongoing scandal. We are at that stage again now, both in terms of the size (9779 words), and the fact that the scandal is clearly far from ending.
The analysis of causes of one of the significant heroes of this saga, Paul Marshal was:
Of the first some of this has, I think, been addressed but is not described in the article. For example, relatively recent statute required courts to take evidence from computers as unarguable. Has that been repealed? Of the second, see the work of Bristol University and others questioning the ethical and legal behaviour of all levels within the legal profession. The third and fourth are getting media attention and will increase. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 12:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Another gap in the article seems to be who provided the various components of the system. According to one of the Computer Weekly articles that I managed to get access to on archive the other day (although I can't find it again now with Google), Oracle, Microsoft, BT, and maybe others were involved in the project along side Fujitsu/ICL. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Southdevonian ( talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not about these edits, so please don't start debate over the content removal. I asked:
Do we have any such [particularly controversial or that which could be easily challenged] information in the lead?
it's in pretty bad shape- oh we all know. I might have to read up on the scandal and just take an angle-grinder to the article myself to make it at least readable. Kingsif ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. I can't see anything relevant on that page that isn't, or couldn't be, covered in the article. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead says that between 1999 and 2015 over 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted. Later in the article it says that by 2013 there were over 11,500 post offices using the system. Do we have any clues as to why (assuming each of the 900 were from different post offices) only around 8% of the post offices were affected if they all used the same software? -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Could someone knock up a timeline showing who was in charge and who was responsible government minister from 1999 to present day? 81.110.169.44 ( talk) 11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't Adam Crozier be mentioned (other than as currently in the title of a source) in the article? Our article on him has a paragraph about the scandal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is Peter Fraser (judge) identified as "Frasier J" throughout this article? Is that a common British practice, or some honorific, or ... ? It confused me a bit until I found the link for the name. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)