![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
This sentence is wrong: "As of January 2024, of the estimated 4000 victims of the scandal 39 have been exonerated, 93 have had their convictions overturned and the majority of compensation claims remain unsettled." Apart from anything else, it might give readers the misleading impression that there are 4000 convicted people. The first paragraph of the intro explains that there are people who were convicted, but that most of the victims do not have convictions, although they are eligible for compensation. Best not to mix the two groups. Of those with convictions - 93 so far have had their convictions overturned in the courts as it already says in the first paragraph. That figure of 93 includes the 39 from Hamilton. As far as I can see from these tables [1] the PO has made 2645 settlement offers but there is no information on how many of the offers have been accepted so we don't know if the majority remain unsettled. Southdevonian ( talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If the quote you have made today under Compensation means 67% of 4000 then I am wrong. I can see nothing in the transcript of House of Commons to say what number it is a percentage of. If is of the estimated 4000 it is itself an estimate. It rather looks like it is known what the actual number is. How can that be? And where is it published. If you read the question that preceeds that statement you will see it was specifically about the convicted. Frankly, I do not yet feel that it is 67% of the estimated 4000. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Martinevans123 (talk) The number 4000 is widely quoted as the estimated number of victims of the scandal. Now, it depends on what is meant by total victims. I believe but, don't know, the Post Office is saying its all those eligible for compensation, and that is a regularly changing figure. It is well reported that the Post Office has been opposing claims and reducing the number of claims they regard as eligible, and others say they are wrong. Without defining the whole stating a percentage is iffy. The smaller the undefined number, the greater is the percentage of settled claims. The highly questionable activities by the post office in opposing claims is reported (Financial Times, Law Gazette) issuing don disclosure letters said to be unethical. The full Hansard reference given in the article to support the 64% claim shows that the government-appointed compensation board has been at loggerheads with either the government or the Post Office or both. The Post Office solicitors has been referred to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. I dont know what the 6$% relates to. I guess it is not to the widely used BBC estimate of 4000 but now to a gradually reducing Post Office defined number of eligible continuing claims. It is very thick mmud to get through. (I have no idea why the entry went in unsigned. I made it on or about 2 Feb. I think the software was defeated by simultaneous edits. If it was my fault I apologise) Jacksoncowes ( talk) 08:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@ This looks like a direct and unattributed copy-and-paste of a two-sentence paragraph from this Guardian page to me. Should we be worried about that? -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all three comments. It occurred when a good-faith edit interrupted me just as I was adding a bit and then the references. I didn't notice it for a while, then found a repeated sentence, and so on. Yes, I did get muddled up and possibly remain muddled. I will try to get my old head around it. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 07:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) There is something strange about the software. Ref 11 was a hybrid thing with two bits in it. When I put in the reference I had earlier put in (12) ref 11 then changed to repeat 12. Weird. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 08:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Southdevonian's. You have identified the date (1995) in the CCRC's submission as a typo and added an unreferenced account of what you think it should say. It is clear to me that it is not a 'typo' and your explanatory note is not correct. The importance of the inclusion of the CCRC's submission is to indicate that whilst there are several accounts using different names for the Post Office's software systems at different times, the Post Office's prosecutions (etc.) in respect of its IT problems started before 1999 and were not, as has been widely supposed, confined to Horizon. Please remove the wrongly placed template. If you want to dispute the CCRC's submission to the Horizon Inquiry you surely need to find some evidence. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Further, to say legacy hasn't been mentioned as a reason not to mention it seems wrong to me. In anny event it appeared in the article previously and mentioned sme 17 times in the Bates judgment. There were lots of known bugs in legacy horizon. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
All sources say that Horizon was introduced in 1999 (or 2000).No they don't. So complex is the issue of the Post Office IT systems that Bates judge Fraser set out a 452 paragraphed Appendix to his judgment . [1] The earliest date within a stated time line of "some “chronology milestones”" is 1996. You are right to infer that a normal reading of the press generally ,and of the wiki article, would lead the casual reader to believe that the scandal started in 1999 or 2000 and that it is confined to cases that involved Horizon . But it is not so for the careful reader, either of the article or of the press generally. To the extent that it is so for the general reader of the article iit shows a flaw in the general construction of the article. We know of the pre 1999 cases and we mention them. We know of the non criminally prosecuted victims and we mention them. And so on. By careful reading of all the RSs we know that the scandalous behaviour is not confined to Horizon and that it probably proceeded 1999. When the Post Offices attacked its victims in the various way that we know it did, it covered up material that it had moral, ethical and, at least probably, a legal duties to reveal.. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 10:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Is anyone else uncomfortable with the content of the current 'Individual cases' section?
It isn't clear why intimate personal details of just these five, of the 700+ people involved in the scandal, have been highlighted this way. Without the context for this specific selection being explained and reliably sourced in the article, this is a WP:SYNTH selection and these individuals are being given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and attention at the expense of those not mentioned. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.We are not doing that. There is no additional conclusion created here.
the views of tiny minoritiesand gives the example of flat earthers. We're not dealing with anything like that here. No-one is denying the experiences of these individual cases. If a case can be made that individual examples are WP:UNDUE, they can be removed on an individual basis, but a blanket argument is unconvincing.
those not mentioned. If there is RS-supported content about others, then they can be added. That's not a reason to remove content already here ( WP:WIP applies). I highly doubt that individuals affected by this scandal are going to be up in arms that they haven't been mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I suspect they would be happier that we are giving real examples, rather than chopping the article to hide these discussions of how the scandal affected people! There is no policy-based argument that says we can only give examples if we mention all 700+ victims. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I have spotted an error in the section about Lee Castleton. The image shown, labelled as Castleton's post office is not the branch Mr. Castleton used to run. I am a Bridlington resident and I can candidly tell you that branch is on Quay Road, Bridlington, and Mr. Castleton's Post Office was on South Marine Drive, Bridlington. I suggest this image is changed to prevent the spread of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonwalk46 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a travesty that needs putting right. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 11:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reading the quote containing the word "obdurate" (Search finds only one in the whole article) and thought it didn't look right, so I checked in the original and found it was the same, so I appended "(sic)" to make it clear the problem is in the original. @Jacksoncowes undid my revision, saying "'obdurate' is a noun and was correctly used by the judge." I disagree on both counts. My Oxford Dictionary of English cites "obdurate" only as an adjective, with noun derivatives "obduracy" and "obdurateness". Hypothetically substituting either of these still doesn't make it sound right. And who knows what the judge actually said? I think he probably said "...and the obdurate refusal to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them..." but "refusal" dropped out of the transcript due to an error.
I think "[sic]" should be restored after "obdurate", and would appreciate comments from other readers.
(Former 14.203.171.149) 61.69.153.197 ( talk) 11:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Bondegezou, in
your revert here, you say It's not OR or UNDUE when it's material supported by reliable sources and reflecting the volume of coverage in reliable sources
. Fair enough if it is, but if it is, then the "Selected case studies" section at least needs an introduction giving the context and selection criteria used in the sources in which this specific list of cases has been presented. Can you help with that? Because without that, readers are unable to verify that this is not just another Wiki editor's cherry-picked list of their favourite individual examples. And we can't just say that because each specific example is sourced it's ok, because that isn't the problem here.
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH and
WP:DUE apply if this specific group of examples hasn't been held up as typical examples by more that one reliable secondary source discussing this affair in general. --
DeFacto (
talk). 11:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Bondegezou, sorry, I didn't get feedback that the ping above had worked, so just trying again... --
DeFacto (
talk).
11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
at least needs an introduction giving the context and selection criteria used in the sources in which this specific list of cases has been presented. Can you help with that?are challenging but spot on. It is my view that there should be individual cases that attempt to illustrate the variety of ways in which the Post Office attacked its victims. I moved the small collection of cases to the Post Office prosecution section because that had and has a full introduction that described the different types of ways the Post Office proceeded against its SPMs (if 'prosecution' is to be used only in its most narrow sense then the word would need to be changed). Moving the cases to the Hamilton appeal and discarding those that do not fit seems to me to be quite wrong. The point I made about the lacuna in Husham and Dundee is important and will prove so. Boyd illustrates a different type of abuse and one that may well prove to be outside the scope of the Exoneration Act, as does Thomas. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 16:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The word “exacerbated” means “made worse”. So the sentence “It was exacerbated by Post Office management who, for years, ignored concerns expressed by hundreds of subpostmasters, instead threatening and pursuing them with legal action over the shortfalls” implies that there was already a scandal, and it was just made worse by persecuting/prosecuting the subpostmasters. In fact, the scandal itself was the persecution/prosecution of subpostmasters. Southdevonian ( talk) 11:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not correct to say "The Post Office opposed thirty-eight of those appeals and fought the cases vigorously but unsuccessfully." They in fact conceded (that is, no fight) 39 appeals on Ground 1 (unfair trial) and successfully opposed 3. They conceded 4 appeals on Ground 2 (improper prosecution) as well as Ground 1 and unsuccessfully opposed 35. Ground 2 was not relevant to those 3 appeals which failed on Ground 1. Too confusing to talk about Grounds 1 and 2 in the intro but hopefully the summary is now accurate. The intro is getting rather long - I think it would be sufficient to say that convictions were overturned, but since an editor added more detail I have corrected it. Southdevonian ( talk) 16:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
MOS:LEADLENGTH says three to four paragraphs as a guideline which seems to be the approach of other articles even very long ones. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:paragraph says that "All the sentences within a paragraph should revolve around the same topic. When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started. Overly long paragraphs should be split up." The third para in the lede currently covers at least five different aspects of the scandal.
We need to break this into smaller paras and remove unnecessary detail - currently, this is "intimidating and difficult to read". Kiwimanic ( talk) 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the article could use a Horizon screenshot that gives the reader an idea about the kind of software that was used. But I have no idea what kind of screenshot is the best option here. Suggestions? I removed the picture from the post office, it is not relevant here. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
In this section, the first para is a quote from Private Eye about problems that occured in the software as early as 1996. The final para under this section describes complaints that a computer system named Capture, which had been rolled out to 300 post offices in 1995. Does anyone know if these are referring to the same system... Kiwimanic ( talk) 06:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we could usefully split the "Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd" section into a stand-alone article (or, better, merge with Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The relevant point under this heading is that the Post Office had no more right to prosecute than you or me. It had ceased to be a public authority and was simply using the rights that we all have to bring a private prosecution. BUT (a huge but), none of the safeguards that exist around private prosecutions were applied because everyone, including itself, were so used to the Post Office acting as 'state' (for want of brevity) prosecutor that those safeguards didn't operate. A second but is that only about 60% were Post Office, i.e. private prosecutions. To my mind the material point is that we, the nation, everyone were so culturally used to the Post Office as prosecutor that none of these prosecutions were applied, either in the PO's cases or in the rest. None were treated to the scrutiny that private prosecutions are, should, must be subjected to. The heading bothers me only because it implies a right that didn't exist. In a way the heading falls into the trap I have just tried to describe. Would Post Office's rights and duties as private procecutor be better?. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 06:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I think there were hundreds of civil cases, but the article mentions only one -Post Office ltd v Castleton in 2006. This case could be moved into the section on Protecting the brand - or we need to add more info about other civil cases. Kiwimanic ( talk) 06:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
"Richard Morgan KC, who had designed the strategy of the Post Office case against Castleton and represented the Post Office at trial denied that he had been given instruction to establish a legal point. He said "he would have told Post Office he would not do it if those instructions had been given."wrongly implies that Dilley designed the strategy. He didn't. More importantly removing it unfairly hides Morgan's defence that he had no intention of doing what he was implicitly accused of doing. Beer's implication of ethical impropriety was made repeatedly with the phrase "nice legal point". That, together with Moorhead's comments make this a potentially serious matter for Morgan. I think that balance, point of view, etc requires that sentence to be left in.
User:Jmc suggested splitting out the details of the inquiry to another article. Karl Flinders has an item in today's Computer Weekly " Alan Bates and JFSA won't back down... which summarises the difficult birth of the inquiry from 2019 onwards, and the 2021 change from statutory to public. Wire723 ( talk) 12:03, 16 April 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 4 | Archive 5 |
This sentence is wrong: "As of January 2024, of the estimated 4000 victims of the scandal 39 have been exonerated, 93 have had their convictions overturned and the majority of compensation claims remain unsettled." Apart from anything else, it might give readers the misleading impression that there are 4000 convicted people. The first paragraph of the intro explains that there are people who were convicted, but that most of the victims do not have convictions, although they are eligible for compensation. Best not to mix the two groups. Of those with convictions - 93 so far have had their convictions overturned in the courts as it already says in the first paragraph. That figure of 93 includes the 39 from Hamilton. As far as I can see from these tables [1] the PO has made 2645 settlement offers but there is no information on how many of the offers have been accepted so we don't know if the majority remain unsettled. Southdevonian ( talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If the quote you have made today under Compensation means 67% of 4000 then I am wrong. I can see nothing in the transcript of House of Commons to say what number it is a percentage of. If is of the estimated 4000 it is itself an estimate. It rather looks like it is known what the actual number is. How can that be? And where is it published. If you read the question that preceeds that statement you will see it was specifically about the convicted. Frankly, I do not yet feel that it is 67% of the estimated 4000. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Martinevans123 (talk) The number 4000 is widely quoted as the estimated number of victims of the scandal. Now, it depends on what is meant by total victims. I believe but, don't know, the Post Office is saying its all those eligible for compensation, and that is a regularly changing figure. It is well reported that the Post Office has been opposing claims and reducing the number of claims they regard as eligible, and others say they are wrong. Without defining the whole stating a percentage is iffy. The smaller the undefined number, the greater is the percentage of settled claims. The highly questionable activities by the post office in opposing claims is reported (Financial Times, Law Gazette) issuing don disclosure letters said to be unethical. The full Hansard reference given in the article to support the 64% claim shows that the government-appointed compensation board has been at loggerheads with either the government or the Post Office or both. The Post Office solicitors has been referred to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. I dont know what the 6$% relates to. I guess it is not to the widely used BBC estimate of 4000 but now to a gradually reducing Post Office defined number of eligible continuing claims. It is very thick mmud to get through. (I have no idea why the entry went in unsigned. I made it on or about 2 Feb. I think the software was defeated by simultaneous edits. If it was my fault I apologise) Jacksoncowes ( talk) 08:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@ This looks like a direct and unattributed copy-and-paste of a two-sentence paragraph from this Guardian page to me. Should we be worried about that? -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all three comments. It occurred when a good-faith edit interrupted me just as I was adding a bit and then the references. I didn't notice it for a while, then found a repeated sentence, and so on. Yes, I did get muddled up and possibly remain muddled. I will try to get my old head around it. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 07:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) There is something strange about the software. Ref 11 was a hybrid thing with two bits in it. When I put in the reference I had earlier put in (12) ref 11 then changed to repeat 12. Weird. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 08:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Southdevonian's. You have identified the date (1995) in the CCRC's submission as a typo and added an unreferenced account of what you think it should say. It is clear to me that it is not a 'typo' and your explanatory note is not correct. The importance of the inclusion of the CCRC's submission is to indicate that whilst there are several accounts using different names for the Post Office's software systems at different times, the Post Office's prosecutions (etc.) in respect of its IT problems started before 1999 and were not, as has been widely supposed, confined to Horizon. Please remove the wrongly placed template. If you want to dispute the CCRC's submission to the Horizon Inquiry you surely need to find some evidence. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Further, to say legacy hasn't been mentioned as a reason not to mention it seems wrong to me. In anny event it appeared in the article previously and mentioned sme 17 times in the Bates judgment. There were lots of known bugs in legacy horizon. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
All sources say that Horizon was introduced in 1999 (or 2000).No they don't. So complex is the issue of the Post Office IT systems that Bates judge Fraser set out a 452 paragraphed Appendix to his judgment . [1] The earliest date within a stated time line of "some “chronology milestones”" is 1996. You are right to infer that a normal reading of the press generally ,and of the wiki article, would lead the casual reader to believe that the scandal started in 1999 or 2000 and that it is confined to cases that involved Horizon . But it is not so for the careful reader, either of the article or of the press generally. To the extent that it is so for the general reader of the article iit shows a flaw in the general construction of the article. We know of the pre 1999 cases and we mention them. We know of the non criminally prosecuted victims and we mention them. And so on. By careful reading of all the RSs we know that the scandalous behaviour is not confined to Horizon and that it probably proceeded 1999. When the Post Offices attacked its victims in the various way that we know it did, it covered up material that it had moral, ethical and, at least probably, a legal duties to reveal.. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 10:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Is anyone else uncomfortable with the content of the current 'Individual cases' section?
It isn't clear why intimate personal details of just these five, of the 700+ people involved in the scandal, have been highlighted this way. Without the context for this specific selection being explained and reliably sourced in the article, this is a WP:SYNTH selection and these individuals are being given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and attention at the expense of those not mentioned. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.We are not doing that. There is no additional conclusion created here.
the views of tiny minoritiesand gives the example of flat earthers. We're not dealing with anything like that here. No-one is denying the experiences of these individual cases. If a case can be made that individual examples are WP:UNDUE, they can be removed on an individual basis, but a blanket argument is unconvincing.
those not mentioned. If there is RS-supported content about others, then they can be added. That's not a reason to remove content already here ( WP:WIP applies). I highly doubt that individuals affected by this scandal are going to be up in arms that they haven't been mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I suspect they would be happier that we are giving real examples, rather than chopping the article to hide these discussions of how the scandal affected people! There is no policy-based argument that says we can only give examples if we mention all 700+ victims. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I have spotted an error in the section about Lee Castleton. The image shown, labelled as Castleton's post office is not the branch Mr. Castleton used to run. I am a Bridlington resident and I can candidly tell you that branch is on Quay Road, Bridlington, and Mr. Castleton's Post Office was on South Marine Drive, Bridlington. I suggest this image is changed to prevent the spread of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonwalk46 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a travesty that needs putting right. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 11:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reading the quote containing the word "obdurate" (Search finds only one in the whole article) and thought it didn't look right, so I checked in the original and found it was the same, so I appended "(sic)" to make it clear the problem is in the original. @Jacksoncowes undid my revision, saying "'obdurate' is a noun and was correctly used by the judge." I disagree on both counts. My Oxford Dictionary of English cites "obdurate" only as an adjective, with noun derivatives "obduracy" and "obdurateness". Hypothetically substituting either of these still doesn't make it sound right. And who knows what the judge actually said? I think he probably said "...and the obdurate refusal to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them..." but "refusal" dropped out of the transcript due to an error.
I think "[sic]" should be restored after "obdurate", and would appreciate comments from other readers.
(Former 14.203.171.149) 61.69.153.197 ( talk) 11:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Bondegezou, in
your revert here, you say It's not OR or UNDUE when it's material supported by reliable sources and reflecting the volume of coverage in reliable sources
. Fair enough if it is, but if it is, then the "Selected case studies" section at least needs an introduction giving the context and selection criteria used in the sources in which this specific list of cases has been presented. Can you help with that? Because without that, readers are unable to verify that this is not just another Wiki editor's cherry-picked list of their favourite individual examples. And we can't just say that because each specific example is sourced it's ok, because that isn't the problem here.
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH and
WP:DUE apply if this specific group of examples hasn't been held up as typical examples by more that one reliable secondary source discussing this affair in general. --
DeFacto (
talk). 11:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Bondegezou, sorry, I didn't get feedback that the ping above had worked, so just trying again... --
DeFacto (
talk).
11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
at least needs an introduction giving the context and selection criteria used in the sources in which this specific list of cases has been presented. Can you help with that?are challenging but spot on. It is my view that there should be individual cases that attempt to illustrate the variety of ways in which the Post Office attacked its victims. I moved the small collection of cases to the Post Office prosecution section because that had and has a full introduction that described the different types of ways the Post Office proceeded against its SPMs (if 'prosecution' is to be used only in its most narrow sense then the word would need to be changed). Moving the cases to the Hamilton appeal and discarding those that do not fit seems to me to be quite wrong. The point I made about the lacuna in Husham and Dundee is important and will prove so. Boyd illustrates a different type of abuse and one that may well prove to be outside the scope of the Exoneration Act, as does Thomas. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 16:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The word “exacerbated” means “made worse”. So the sentence “It was exacerbated by Post Office management who, for years, ignored concerns expressed by hundreds of subpostmasters, instead threatening and pursuing them with legal action over the shortfalls” implies that there was already a scandal, and it was just made worse by persecuting/prosecuting the subpostmasters. In fact, the scandal itself was the persecution/prosecution of subpostmasters. Southdevonian ( talk) 11:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not correct to say "The Post Office opposed thirty-eight of those appeals and fought the cases vigorously but unsuccessfully." They in fact conceded (that is, no fight) 39 appeals on Ground 1 (unfair trial) and successfully opposed 3. They conceded 4 appeals on Ground 2 (improper prosecution) as well as Ground 1 and unsuccessfully opposed 35. Ground 2 was not relevant to those 3 appeals which failed on Ground 1. Too confusing to talk about Grounds 1 and 2 in the intro but hopefully the summary is now accurate. The intro is getting rather long - I think it would be sufficient to say that convictions were overturned, but since an editor added more detail I have corrected it. Southdevonian ( talk) 16:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
MOS:LEADLENGTH says three to four paragraphs as a guideline which seems to be the approach of other articles even very long ones. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:paragraph says that "All the sentences within a paragraph should revolve around the same topic. When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started. Overly long paragraphs should be split up." The third para in the lede currently covers at least five different aspects of the scandal.
We need to break this into smaller paras and remove unnecessary detail - currently, this is "intimidating and difficult to read". Kiwimanic ( talk) 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the article could use a Horizon screenshot that gives the reader an idea about the kind of software that was used. But I have no idea what kind of screenshot is the best option here. Suggestions? I removed the picture from the post office, it is not relevant here. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
In this section, the first para is a quote from Private Eye about problems that occured in the software as early as 1996. The final para under this section describes complaints that a computer system named Capture, which had been rolled out to 300 post offices in 1995. Does anyone know if these are referring to the same system... Kiwimanic ( talk) 06:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we could usefully split the "Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd" section into a stand-alone article (or, better, merge with Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The relevant point under this heading is that the Post Office had no more right to prosecute than you or me. It had ceased to be a public authority and was simply using the rights that we all have to bring a private prosecution. BUT (a huge but), none of the safeguards that exist around private prosecutions were applied because everyone, including itself, were so used to the Post Office acting as 'state' (for want of brevity) prosecutor that those safeguards didn't operate. A second but is that only about 60% were Post Office, i.e. private prosecutions. To my mind the material point is that we, the nation, everyone were so culturally used to the Post Office as prosecutor that none of these prosecutions were applied, either in the PO's cases or in the rest. None were treated to the scrutiny that private prosecutions are, should, must be subjected to. The heading bothers me only because it implies a right that didn't exist. In a way the heading falls into the trap I have just tried to describe. Would Post Office's rights and duties as private procecutor be better?. Jacksoncowes ( talk) 06:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I think there were hundreds of civil cases, but the article mentions only one -Post Office ltd v Castleton in 2006. This case could be moved into the section on Protecting the brand - or we need to add more info about other civil cases. Kiwimanic ( talk) 06:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
"Richard Morgan KC, who had designed the strategy of the Post Office case against Castleton and represented the Post Office at trial denied that he had been given instruction to establish a legal point. He said "he would have told Post Office he would not do it if those instructions had been given."wrongly implies that Dilley designed the strategy. He didn't. More importantly removing it unfairly hides Morgan's defence that he had no intention of doing what he was implicitly accused of doing. Beer's implication of ethical impropriety was made repeatedly with the phrase "nice legal point". That, together with Moorhead's comments make this a potentially serious matter for Morgan. I think that balance, point of view, etc requires that sentence to be left in.
User:Jmc suggested splitting out the details of the inquiry to another article. Karl Flinders has an item in today's Computer Weekly " Alan Bates and JFSA won't back down... which summarises the difficult birth of the inquiry from 2019 onwards, and the 2021 change from statutory to public. Wire723 ( talk) 12:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)