Horizon scandal: Call for all Post Office convictions to be overturned

[Nearly Sane]

But you want due process, right? These people have to have broken a law in a demonstrable way and you can't put them in prison just because it might make some other people feel a bit better about the whole thing.

There seems to have been a culture of denying that anything was wrong. Perhaps if the consequences of admitting fault weren't so dire, people wouldn't have done all the covering up in the first place and all this would never have happened.

I haven't suggested anyone should be put in prison just because other people want to feel better.

The cover up is part of the behaviour that may be part of criminal proceedings, so saying the penalties for a cover up caused the cover up seems odd.

[jeremyp]

I haven't suggested anyone should be put in prison just because other people want to feel better.

The cover up is part of the behaviour that may be part of criminal proceedings, so saying the penalties for a cover up caused the cover up seems odd.

Why do you think people engage in CYA type activities? It's because they perceive that owning up to a mistake might have adverse consequences for them. Therefore they cover them up.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you think people engage in CYA type activities? It's because they perceive that owning up to a mistake might have adverse consequences for them. Therefore they cover them up.

And again if the cover up is part of the what is prosecuted, and they are scared to face the consequences then it's simply doubling down. Your position seems to be that there should be no consequences for what people do.

[Gordon]

Surely though if some PO managers knowingly proceeded to prosecute people where it was already known that the Horizon system had relevant errors and/or its data could be amended post hoc, leading to harm being wrongly done to others, then their conduct merits review.

If I ignore road signs when driving and cause harm then I may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving, since I either ignored signs or had failed in my responsibility to to be aware of them - in other words I was negligent. Seems to me that whether the PO managers were negligent to the point of causing harm is relevant, especially since some of the convictions these managers pursued have since been set aside.

If they subsequently committed perjury then that is a serious matter.

[Nearly Sane]

A tragic scandal

https://news.sky.com/story/at-least-70-people-in-post-office-and-royal-mail-knew-of-horizon-it-flaws-fujitsu-lawyer-tells-inquiry-13275432?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

[jeremyp]

Surely though if some PO managers knowingly proceeded to prosecute people where it was already known that the Horizon system had relevant errors and/or its data could be amended post hoc, leading to harm being wrongly done to others, then their conduct merits review.

If I ignore road signs when driving and cause harm then I may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving, since I either ignored signs or had failed in my responsibility to to be aware of them - in other words I was negligent. Seems to me that whether the PO managers were negligent to the point of causing harm is relevant, especially since some of the convictions these managers pursued have since been set aside.

If they subsequently committed perjury then that is a serious matter.

If people break the law, they should face the consequences but only after due process. However, there's an undercurrent of vengeance that I don't like. In some people's minds, it seems like making somebody pay is the most important thing. This is not the case. The most important thing is understanding why it happened and stopping it from happening again, closely followed by doing what we can to clear up the mess it has made of people's lives. Holding people to account for the laws they have broken is third and, even then, we need to adhere to due process and not lower the standard for conviction just because we want to see people in prison.

There's always a problem in situations like this in that convicting people and finding out what really happened are goals that are in tension, because the people who know what really happen are often the ones in danger of conviction and they may be less than cooperative because they want to avoid jail.

[Nearly Sane]

If people break the law, they should face the consequences but only after due process. However, there's an undercurrent of vengeance that I don't like. In some people's minds, it seems like making somebody pay is the most important thing. This is not the case. The most important thing is understanding why it happened and stopping it from happening again, closely followed by doing what we can to clear up the mess it has made of people's lives. Holding people to account for the laws they have broken is third and, even then, we need to adhere to due process and not lower the standard for conviction just because we want to see people in prison.

There's always a problem in situations like this in that convicting people and finding out what really happened are goals that are in tension, because the people who know what really happen are often the ones in danger of conviction and they may be less than cooperative because they want to avoid jail.

So you think that those who suffered this, who you earlier wanted to complete, and want to see the prosecutions are just thinking about vengeance and their opinion should be taken after your's because it's not important in your view.

Again, if there  is no accountability, then the lessons won't be learned.

[Nearly Sane]

And gongs for being persecuted but too many who were part of that also have gongs and have been rewarded for their failure.


https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/horizon-scandal-victims-recognised-new-year-honours-list/

[Nearly Sane]

Meanwhile the compensation is still slow


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20ey5g88eno

[jeremyp]

So you think that those who suffered this, who you earlier wanted to complete, and want to see the prosecutions are just thinking about vengeance and their opinion should be taken after your's because it's not important in your view.

If the law has been broken, then people need to face the consequences, but your attitude stinks.

It's much more important to ensure that things like this do not happen again and much more important to fix the system that let this happen.

Again, if there  is no accountability, then the lessons won't be learned.

Let's say Paula Vennells goes to prison. Who learns a lesson from that and what lesson do they learn? Paula Vennells learns that she shouldn't have done what she did but she is never going to be CEO of a large organisation again and it would have been better for her to learn the lesson before she took over the Post Office, so the lesson is wasted on her.

Will other people learn lessons from her conviction? Maybe, but the lesson might be "if you screw up, don't get caught".

The reason I say your attitude stinks is that my position is quite nuanced but you are trying to paint a black and white picture so you can score your debating points. The reality is that the desire to make people pay for the damage they caused and the desire to find out what went wrong and fix it for the future are in tension and it's a tricky path to navigate.

[Nearly Sane]

If the law has been broken, then people need to face the consequences, but your attitude stinks.

It's much more important to ensure that things like this do not happen again and much more important to fix the system that let this happen.Let's say Paula Vennells goes to prison. Who learns a lesson from that and what lesson do they learn? Paula Vennells learns that she shouldn't have done what she did but she is never going to be CEO of a large organisation again and it would have been better for her to learn the lesson before she took over the Post Office, so the lesson is wasted on her.

Will other people learn lessons from her conviction? Maybe, but the lesson might be "if you screw up, don't get caught".

The reason I say your attitude stinks is that my position is quite nuanced but you are trying to paint a black and white picture so you can score your debating points. The reality is that the desire to make people pay for the damage they caused and the desire to find out what went wrong and fix it for the future are in tension and it's a tricky path to navigate.

So you are saying to those persecuted by these failures that their desire to see people held accountable for that stinks. So much for you wanting to compete them as you suggested earlier.

[jeremyp]

So you are saying to those persecuted by these failures that their desire to see people held accountable for that stinks.

No I am not. I am saying your attitude stinks. And this is another example. You have twisted what I said yet again to come up with a straw man to argue.

[Nearly Sane]

No I am not. I am saying your attitude stinks. And this is another example. You have twisted what I said yet again to come up with a straw man to argue.

Because if you think my attitude stink because I want accountability, then you think their attitude stinks because they want accountability. That's how ligic works.

[Nearly Sane]

Alan Bates unimpressed

https://news.sky.com/story/sub-postmasters-still-going-through-hell-lead-campaigner-sir-alan-bates-says-13308100

[jeremyp]

Because if you think my attitude stink because I want accountability, then you think their attitude stinks because they want accountability. That's how ligic works.

Accountability is not the same as retribution.

It's understandable that some of the victims want punishment for those who put them through hell, and I agree that anybody who breaks the law must answer but they do deserve due process and quite importantly, that won't do anything to compensate the victims, nor will it do much to stop something like this from happening again.

If you want to learn what went wrong and how to fix it, you need the cooperation of everybody involved. Threats of lynchings tend to make that difficult.

I say your attitude stinks because you focus on making the bad actors pay rather than on fixing the problem. To be fair, it's a common attitude. Although you do compound it by twisting my words instead of engaging with what I've written.

[Nearly Sane]

Accountability is not the same as retribution.

It's understandable that some of the victims want punishment for those who put them through hell, and I agree that anybody who breaks the law must answer but they do deserve due process and quite importantly, that won't do anything to compensate the victims, nor will it do much to stop something like this from happening again.

If you want to learn what went wrong and how to fix it, you need the cooperation of everybody involved. Threats of lynchings tend to make that difficult.

I say your attitude stinks because you focus on making the bad actors pay rather than on fixing the problem. To be fair, it's a common attitude. Although you do compound it by twisting my words instead of engaging with what I've written.

Where have I said that due process shouldn't be followed or that there should be lynchings If you want due process, it might make you look less of a hypocrite if you didn't lie about what I've said

[Nearly Sane]

And on and on it goes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2ernpd0k22o