Talk:British Post Office scandal/Archive 4

Numbers in intro
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 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)


 * @Southdevonian Thank for bringing it here. You reverted me saying the numbers are wrong. You should be able to say where they are wrong.  They are not.  Of the 93 overturned convictions only 39 have been overturned and exonerated., 42 of the 93 have not been exonerated. There is information in the tables showing settled compensation claims and interim payments, the number settled is tiny.  It is now misleading because  the 555 are claiming to have been wrongly forced to accept.  You now say the sentence is wrong.  Perhaps you could have edited tit o a form that retained the meaning.  I don't think that anyone reading the lead could possibly get to my sentence at the end of the lead thinking 4000  people have been convicted. They could, I think,  come to the view it is really only, or mainly about 93 convictions.  Overturning a conviction is not an exoneration. What about the people who were prosecuted, but not convicted.  They haven't been exonerated in spite of being hauled before a court that was told there was nothing wrong with the accounting system when the initiator of the prosecution knew there was.  They are extremely unlikely to be ever to be exonerated unless they can afford to mount a claim for wrongful prosecution (not the same as malicious prosecution).  Such a case is reported fully in the Guardian this morning.  For all of those reason I believe we should not put exact numbers in the lead. Accurate ball park figures would be better in the lead because they are changing daily.
 * I know it is turgidly difficult and confusing. Many involved in the scandal (not editing the article) are determined to make it as confusing as possible. Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Southdevonian. Having reverted me again before reading my reply does constitute discuss an is definately not the way editing should be Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is a technical legal difference between exoneration and having a conviction quashed, it is not explained anywhere in the article and so should not be introduced in the introduction. And it needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is intended for a general readership. Southdevonian (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Southdevonian Please reinstate what you have just reverted. Then we can discuss this properly.   Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At the moment the intro does not contain exact numbers - it is all "over", "nearly" etc, except for two historic figures - number of claimants in Bates and number of prosecutions by Post Office (which could be changed to "about" in case they uncover any more). I think it would be a good idea to keep it that way. Southdevonian (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Southdevonian Do you intend to undo your revert of my edit? Exoneration is an ordinary English word fully explained in all good dictionaries.  We do not have define word before we use them.  The distinction between is set out in the article.  It is explained on the talk page. The figures are not wrong and you should repair what you reverted. There is a wikki word for what you are doing and it is not yet discuss. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The dictionary definition of exonerate is sufficiently broad to include overturning of convictions. That, I think, is what most people would understand. If there is a technical legal difference between having a conviction quashed and being exonerated, then it needs to be explained in the article rather than being put in the introduction. At the moment the article mentions "exonerate" or "exoneration" six times: one is in a ref; four relate to the plans for a blanket exoneration by the government. That leaves one mention: in the section about Hamilton, and it does not explain the specialist way that the word is being used. The intro needs to stay readable, without readers having to puzzle over legal terminology. If you must introduce this difference between quashing convictions and exonerating people, then I would suggest a footnote after the use of the word "exonerate" in the Hamilton section. Southdevonian (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Southdevonian You reverted me wrongly saying it was incorrect and that the majority had been compensated. You were wrong. You reverted again saying my figures were wrong. They weren't. You reverted again whilst I was replying to you to show you the figures were correct. Now you are on a different tack. How the point is phrased is much less important to me or to the article than is to get into the lead the fact that of the estimated 4000 victims, the overwhelming majority have not been cleared or compensated (settled) in spite of the decades that this scandal has been running.  You have been wrong on each of your edits and reverts of this point; so long as those straightforward points get into the lead I don't care how it is worded or who puts it in. I don't think you are discussing properly.
 * Please see the discussion about the lead at Talk:British Post Office scandal#Numbers in intro above.
 * Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, @Martinevans123, @DeFacto (talk). @Kingsif (talk) Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, @Martinevans123, @DeFacto (talk). @Kingsif (talk) Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You need a template.
 * Courtesy pinging see above. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The amount of compensation paid out to date can be seen in the tables here for people without convictions (which I think includes people who were prosecuted and found not guilty) and the amount paid to people with convictions can be seen here . A total of £128 million has been paid out in compensation to date, but the figures do not tell us how much of that has gone in final settlements. People with convictions cannot be compensated until their convictions are overturned (unless they are entitled to interim payments - I don't know). As for the people without convictions I imagine delays are caused because a final amount is still being negotiated. But from those figures you cannot conclude that the majority of claimants have not received compensation. I would say slightly more than half have received compensation, although perhaps not all of them have received final settlements, and most of the rest are still waiting because their convictions have not been overturned yet. Southdevonian (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly reverted. You should have edited. I attempted to put in a concise statement that drew together the estimated number of victims (4000), the majority of those convicted have not had their convictions overturned (less than 100 out of 900), and the majority of the 4000 have not had their compensation claims settled (30 fully settled). You could have edited to include settled but you reverted and reverted again. Sentences to the effect of "The majority of the estimated 4000 victims of this two-decade scandal have not yet had their convictions overturned or their compensation claims fully settled. For some this has been so for two decades" should be in the lead. The confusion that you show and that we all have experienced is, IMO, being used by Government, PO and others.  Coverup is at its heart, I believe it is important that the article does not simply repeat confusing statements, My suggested sentence in the lead would help to lessen the confession. Too much has been removed without realising its importance. More should have been moved and written around to clarify.  The article needs to be read, eg exonerate is in and it 'technical' relevance explained.  See recent entry to Individual cases section. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:17, 1 February 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)


 * 4000 looks like a very round number, doesn't it. Just saying. (Perhaps the Horizon software made them round it to the nearest thousand...) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 4000 is the estimate so it would be a round number Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So that could be anything between 3,500 and 4,500, or between 3,999 and 4,001... or what? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Southdevonian Do you think it refers to 67% of 4000? It is not clear on the page one way or the other. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Kevin Hollinrake's words were "64% of all those affected by the scandal have received full and final compensation." So it looks as if it refers to the people across the 3 schemes, which I think comes to over 4,000. The 4,000 figure in the article is referenced to two BBC articles which say "over 4000" (one of them adding "estimated"). I expect there will be an update on figures soon. Southdevonian (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. I have just googled   "More than £32.4 million has been paid in compensation to date, including 30 full and final settlements. You can find more information about assistance for appealing convictions here."   That is google selecting from the Post Office Report dated Jan 10 (same day).  Strange isn't it?  If you are right I would change the word majority in my proposed sentence to only 64% . I will wait.  One way or another if we wait you will eventually become right, if you are not already. More seriously, the plethora of reports of complaints in the RS about the victim's anger about the compensation, the NDAs, the current aggressive treatment by the Post Office, and the lack of those press comments in the article is causing the page to look unbalanced. Bates is quoted rejecting the compensation offer as cruel and insulting. Just reporting Gov and PO statements without press commentary  IMO isn't good. Who's voice is it now? The  Chairman of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board has written in rough term to the PO CEO about the way the PO is behaving.  PO is referred to SRA. ets etc. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your quote refers to people with convictions only. I referenced it (footnote 29) in one of my posts above. The majority of compensation paid out by 10 January went to people without convictions and can be found on another Post Office page (footnote 28) in a post above. Southdevonian (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please address or even acknowledge the points I made above. They are important. I acknowledge that you think the minister meant 64% of about 4000 and that you may be,  probably are right.  It is clear from lots of current press articles that the issue is currently more controversial than the whole article shows it. IMO. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You come close to edit warring. Please address the issues above. For example The Post Office solicitor has been referred to the SRA and they have stated they are investigating the Post Office.  This was called for and that fact was covered in the article years ago. Its now a fact; it has happened, but no mention here.  RCs  produce evidence that the Government knew about the Horizon faults before the Bates case.  These are facts; it is a fact that evidence has been made public.  Misunderstanding the full scope of ordinary words like exonerate and commentary and then misusing them does not address issues.  The template is there not necessarily to criticise.  It is also to encourage editors to look for and add cover of the really quite broad and very important matters that have been in RSs since October last year and have not come into the article. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I say below, the currents events template is inappropriate. You misunderstood the compensation figures (which is easily done) and added something incorrect to the introduction. I corrected it. As for the SRA, etc., you can add a section if you think it is noteworthy, although the article is far too long already. And the introduction stays readable and concise. Southdevonian (talk) 12:29, 2 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)


 * @ FT2 (talk | contribs) made a good faith edit in correcting received to accepted. As only the single sentence, without surrounding material from the Commons debate appears in the article they are right in the sense that the sentence is clearly wrong. @Southdevonian's correction back to received must be right in the sense that that is what the minister said. You cant polish a turd.  The single sentence sentence, stated in wikipedia's voice and raised to the lead is quite quite wrong Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
@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)


 * That's appalling. Haul him off to AN/I, impose an indef block and instigate a full WP:CCI, I say. A very minor slip in a laudable effort to get the facts exactly right. You could probably easily manage a quick re-write to spare his blushes and avoid Wikipedia being dragged through the copyright courts by those tofu-eating wokerati at The Grauniad. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As Martin so simply put it, no need for a discussion when it's non-extensive and you can WP:FIXIT yourself. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading WP:COPYVIO, it's not as straightforward as that. I thought it better to discuss it hear to understand whether it actually is a violation. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it's a subjective judgement, both in terms of number of words and degree of similarity. Earwig's Copyvio Detector can be a useful tool to asses the degree of similarity. I'm pretty sure that if anyone sees what they think might be a copyvio, they should remove it and then seek further advice. But I think it's always a good idea to ask the editor concerned if they can fix it. In some cases oversight from an admin may be required to revision-delete the original contribution. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are sure, then perhaps you should delete it. I know what'll happen if I do. The has looked at it, but seems to have only duplicated the reference on it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not sure. And I've already been told, at another ongoing CCI, that I am in no position to make judgements about copyvio. If you did decide to delete it, on the grounds of a potential copyvio, I very much doubt it would be restored. But perhaps you think, coincidentally, that the material doesn't belong in any case? A more prudent course of action might be to request admin advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 14 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)

CCRC footnote
@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)


 * The vast majority of sources - and this article - refer simply to Horizon. The fact that there were two versions with a technical difference (legacy and online Horizon) is not important - they are both Horizon. They both have the bugs, etc. Introducing this technical difference has no relevance and just confuses things. All sources say that Horizon was introduced in 1999 (or 2000). The footnote in the CCRC submission is wrong - either because it is a typo or because they got confused with Capture (introduced in 1995) and Horizon (introduced in 1999). In any case the document is a primary source and so should not really be used.
 * Look at the paragraph under the Post Office IT systems heading carefully. The first sentence says:
 * A precursor of the Horizon system, named Capture had been rolled out to 300 post offices in 1995.
 * There are then two sentences without dates. Then there is the CCRC footnote sentence.
 * In a footnote in their submission to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, the CCRC said: "The original version, introduced in 1995 [sic] is sometimes referred to as 'Legacy Horizon' and the current version, known as 'Horizon Online', is sometimes referred to as 'HNG-X'".
 * Then there is another sentence:
 * In 1999, the Post Office started to roll out the new software to its branches and sub-post offices, the latter managed by subpostmasters on a self-employed basis under contracts with the Post Office.
 * So the CCRC footnote sentence contradicts the other two sentences.
 * And further on in the article there are three more sourced references to Horizon dating to 1999. Southdevonian (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Describing something that doesn't conform to what you think you know as a typo does not make it a typo. I ought to just stop there with my request that you remove the templated comment.  However, I do understand your laudable drive for clarity. With respect I believe that your apparent desire to keep out material that you regard as irrelevant/confusing to be wrong.   Contradicting entries can be as important as confirmatory ones.; they can lead to questions that might lead to the truth.  As I write this the BBC is announcing that it has evidence that might indicate that government and post office were involved together in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. You say 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 .  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)
 * The pre 1999 cases concerned different software - Capture. It is wrong to say Horizon was introduced in 1995.
 * "The Post Office introduced a computer system called Horizon in 2000 across all its branches. That was changed in 2010 to an online version called Horizon Online or HNG-X, and the former version is now called Legacy Horizon" Bates judgment no 6 I have replaced the quote which contains a mistake with a sentence sourced to the judgment and the Private Eye article, and moved it to a more appropriate place. Southdevonian (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

'Individual cases'?
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)


 * Concur. These examples would be fine in a newspaper or magazine article but don't belong in the encyclopedia. -- Wire723 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed this section per the legitimate policy-based concerns raised here. If content from this section is to be included elsewhere in the main article text on a case-by-case basis (taking into account WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT as mentioned by DeFacto above) then that may be a better way forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Both the original Computer Weekly article, the court case, and the current ITV drama focus in on a number of cases, and it is inevitable that these have therefore attracted most of the attention. The key is that the article fully conforms with BLP and privacy policies, and focuses on the scale and breadth of the scandal rather than getting too deeply into a handful of cases.  Nevertheless some illustration of the personal stories behind the scandal with short summaries, using (only) information already widely published, would be useful for the reader, I suggest? MapReader (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should also remember that the the original Computer Weekly article was produced in the context of the true scale of the prosecutions not being known, coupled with the reluctance of some still-serving SPMs to go on the record. I do think, however, that it is entirely legitimate to highlight selected individual cases in order to clarify the experiences of the SPMs. We're not talking about hundreds of people wrongly being given out incorrect parking or speeding fines here, but rather the systematic destruction of lives in various different ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the arguments made to remove a large quantity of well-referenced text based on WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are dubious and misuses of both policies. Editors are in danger of inventing their own policies.
 * I don't see how WP:SYNTH particularly applies. These are all clearly cases related to the overall article. We are not imputing or inferring anything extra, just noting what reliable sources say about these individual cases. WP:SYNTH starts 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.
 * I don't think WP:UNDUE generally applies because we are following the reliable source reporting that has talked at length about these individual cases. WP:UNDUE talks about the views of tiny minorities and 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.
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that I am aware of that says example cases, when well supported by reliable sources, should not be given.
 * expresses a concern about 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)
 * @Bondegezou, I disagree. The selection implies that these are typical examples. Without cites to sources presenting these specific examples in a similar context, and as as typical examples, we are falling foul of WP:SYNTH. That these individual cases are covered in separate sources does not give them due weight when combined into this single context as none of them individually have due weight.
 * Cases presented as typical examples in our article need to be supported by sources discussing the scandal and providing these specific cases as their typical examples too. Otherwise we are performing OR/SYNTH in grouping them as typical examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto The text nowhere claimed these are typical examples. Your argument makes no sense. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, if they are not being given as typical examples, what are they being given as? A random bunch of context-free cases, cherry-picked from 'reliable sources', has no place in an encyclopaedic article. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are individual cases that reliable sources have talked about; ergo, so should we. (Why are you putting reliable sources in scare quotes?) Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We need to remember that the news media, even those accepted by Wikipedia as 'reliable sources', will be trawling their contacts, social media, moles, whistle-blowers, etc., to find the cases most likely to trigger public uproar and maximise indignation, so are not a good source for plucking typical examples from. That is why the context behind the selection of examples is important and why a list compiled this way conflicts with WP:SYNTH. We need a list that is sourced as a whole list (or lists selected as whole lists) and with which there is the context for selection given. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You appear to be re-writing what we define as reliable sources. As to reliable sources providing "whole lists", do you mean like these:, ? Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am rather surprised at the line of argument that seems to be pursued here, i.e. that we have to provide evidence that the individual cases are "typical." As I said above, this scandal has detrimentally affected a great number of individuals in various different ways. The Post Office chose to pursue different cases differently, even cases that ostensibly seem similar. Alan Bates was forced out, but not prosecuted or sued; Lee Castleton was sued, while others faced criminal prosecutions; Martin Griffiths and three others committed suicide. Individual circumstances varied widely. "Typical" did not and does not exist, and the previously included individual cases were not presented as such, but rather reflected the range of experiences. We should be building on that, not gaming the system to remove them for no rational reason. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that youn don't just report and then archive. It is an issue that serves as a warning how NOT to do things. It is therefore very appropriate to see some individual cases to illustrate what wrongdoing does to people.
 * It is about blind trust in computer generated data, and 'I could not prove it", which my friend said when 64,000 AUD vanished in some computer transaction. We, the users cannot prove anything computers do; hiring experts costs too much, while the software vendors always get their money. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:888A:D5B2:E574:757 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For those new to this discussion, this is the key edit. Should that content have been left or removed? Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They should have been left (better late than never eh) Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have sought more input on the interpretation of WP:SYNTH from the relevant noticeboard at No_original_research/Noticeboard. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That hasn't attracted any apparent attention yet, perhaps we need an RfC to help reach a sound policy-based consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing practice elsewhere on Wikipedia, I note similar sections on individual cases, seemingly written in a similar way, exist in the following articles: Focus E15, Same-sex marriage in Brazil, Concordia College and University, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Victoria, Political abuse of psychiatry in Russia, Aboriginal deaths in custody, Anti-gay purges in Chechnya, ShotSpotter, and Cases of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Again, I don't see any policy objection to such content. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the person who deleted the information, I have no objection to it being re-inserted, especially as it seems most editors support inclusion. Just thought we should have consensus on the talk page before this information is added to avoid any edit-warring. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You weren't the first person to delete it, and I'm still not convinced that we have a policy-based consensus that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I re-inserted the material,, but re-removed it.
 * Can I get a show of hands? Does anyone else still agree with DeFacto’s position? Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree to the extent that the section as it is does not add anything useful to the article. How does a sentence such as "Noel Thomas, a man who had worked for the Royal Mail for 42 years, went to prison as a result of the errors" add anything, when the article has already said that people went to prison? If they must be mentioned I think it would be better to do so in the text of the article, rather than listing in a separate section. For example those cases that are featured in the recent TV drama could be discussed in the dramatisation section. Southdevonian (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it would enhance the article is you added under the dramatisation section some of the examples they highlighted. These actors and the people they represent are happy with the publicity and the article could do with examples of the social impact of the issue on these ordinary people, to explain, the dramatisation selected a few cases as representations, Noel Thomas, Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton and Martin Griffiths. If they consider them typical and cover most aspects of the case, I see no reason why we cannot do the same. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I support @Ânes-pur-sàng's and @Southdevonian's suggestion as the examples would be those selected for the TV dramatisation, and that context would make their selection WP:SYNTH compliant. -- DeFacto (talk). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , all the cases previously named had, as far as I can see, agreed to talk to the media concerned and had done so to publicise the issues. I am unclear why only the ones featured in a drama should then be mentioned…?
 * , I remain unclear how you think any of the text at WP:SYNTH applies here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The mention of the drama does not enhance the article by much, but by adding an explanation of the four main cases, it will add a personal aspect that I find is missing and explain that the drama is based on real people, not pure fiction. Try it, then we can see if there are any other cases that are so different that they warrant a mention and whether it is a reasonably balanced group. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about a section with the title "Victims" - brief introduction and then details of some people explaining why they are highlighted, for example "X gave an interview to the BBC in which they recounted how they went to prison/were bankrupted..." "Y, who featured in the TV drama..."? Southdevonian (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am, to be honest, confused how this would be differ substantially from the section that was removed and which, upthread, you said "does not add anything useful to the article"? Could you or try an edit, or flesh out further what you mean? Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 8 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)


 * Many thanks for pointing that out. It was my error. Fixed now. Southdevonian (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Lead
This is a travesty that needs putting right. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posts like that are remarkably unhelpful. Be specific, or ship out. MapReader (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MapReader, and others of course. Its not meant to unhelpful - more a suggestion to ship in. I should be able to claim the right to have my post to the talk page treated as a post made in good faith. If the consensus is that the lead is fine then it will, no doubt, stay as it is. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've read WP:NOTAFORUM, right? Good faith, but useless, to just comment that. And with no call for improvement plus a pessimistic view, it's not exactly encouraging to other editors, either. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"Obdurate is a noun" - Really?
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)


 * Agree - [sic] should be restored. Obdurate can be used as a noun but with a different meaning and always has "the" in front of it.
 * Oxford English Dictionary says:
 * "With plural agreement. With the. Obstinate or unyielding people as a class; (formerly) (also) †hardened sinners (obsolete).
 * Most recent example given is from a 1924 play. Southdevonian (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support - but I will wait a bit to see if any other comments appear before putting it back. Nit-picking point: should there be a space between "obdurate" and "[sic]"? ... and a dumb question: why does "[sic]" go blue? (Former 14.203.171.149) 124.168.196.17 (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (It was blue while I was typing but went back to white after sending.) 124.168.196.17 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Frederick Please ignore this experiment by a newbie 124.168.196.17 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been no further comments but I will make the change now. (Former 14.203.171.149) 14.201.77.210 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Selected case studies?
@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)


 * @Bondegezou, I don't think that the rewording of the section title or the addition of one short and unsourced introductory sentence as you did here has in any way addressed the OR/SYNTH and DUE issues that I raised.
 * We surely need to source the selection of these specific cases, otherwise we could end up with an indiscriminate list of hundreds of cases as passing editors add their own relative, acquaintance, former sub-postmaster, someone they've just seen mentioned in their newspaper, or whatever.
 * To prevent an indiscriminate list, we should only mention cases that are referenced by top-notch sources that are clearly discussing the topic itself and not just spotlighting 'victims'. That way it stops being a cherry-picked OR/SYNTH list of martyrs (with many being UNDUE) and becomes a fully verifiable list of examples that are key to the understanding of the topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed the section title back because notable suggests that others aren't notable. Also removed sentence because they were not all prosecutions (my understanding is that the two sisters were not prosecuted) and they didn't all garner particular media attention.
 * On a similar theme, why has Seema Misra's case been singled out for its own section? Southdevonian (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe this section was in the article for over 5 years. If you think specific parts of it need tweaking, go for it, but wholesale removal is silly. Bondegezou (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto has correctly identified some time ago that a prosecution is not a miscarriage of justice. Only appeals upheld by the Court of Appeal on ground 2 can be described as 'wrongly prosecuted'. RS say that Sarah Burgess Boyd was prosecuted and acquitted, thats all. A victim of the scandal yes probably. The Post Office offered no evidence, we know no more. She can't appeal. She won't be declared exonerated by the bill (no Act yet). Should we not wait until she sues the Post Office for wrongful prosecution?  The same applies to Noel Thomas.  I know of no reference that his conviction was quashed in ground 2.  Because the Post Office has, by law been a party, each and every appeal has required either their assent or their opposition to be ruled against.  All the RS are silent on the grounds of the quashing.
 * Removing Huxham & Dundee from the article on the basis of a speculation that they will, at some later date, be exonerated is creative but premature, even if the speculation was well founded. It is not. From what we know from published sources both cases are excluded form the proposed legislation (section 3) see also https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/bill-in-the-post. If there is a good reason to remove them do so but give a valid reason.
 * Overturned conviction on either or both of the ground certainly removes the conviction but it doesn't maan that the prosecution never happened. Removing the formal title of the prosecution, R v Blogs etc. on the basis that the protagonist has had their conviction quashed is illogical. It would make more sense to remove for not liking that style of heading.  To try to imply that the prosecution didn't happen is like a Victorian covering chair legs. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SouthdevonianYour quick response to my first point is appreciated, thank you. Noel Thomas was not one of the Hamilton appellants so cannot be put where you have put him. I do hope this does not prompt you simply to omit him as you have with Boyd, Huxham and Dundee.
 * It was my understanding of an earlier consensus that the page had paid too little attention to the effects of the scandal on the subpostmasters, and that the current consensus is that there should be cases illustrative of the scandal. @Bondegezou has made their point clearly in several edits and I agree. I think @DeFacto's remarks - 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)
 * @Southdevonian Ha! Well done. And the rest? Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

First sentence(s) - why exacerbated is wrong
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)


 * Yes. The syntax was not acceptable and you are quite right. Your current edit come much closer to a succinct definition of the scandal.  You correctly go for the prosecutions as the scandal.   The concept of management mendacity, which is what I think @Kiwimanic wanted to get into that opening paragraph, is not yet there but is needed. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of Hamilton in intro
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)


 * @Southdevonian The Post Office opposed aspects of all 42 cases and lost on all aspects that it opposed in 38. It opposed applications that the court grant leave for the cases in which it opposed ground 2 to make submissions concerning ground 2, i.e. 42- the 4 in which it conceded grounds 1&2.  When it lost that submission it opposed the submissions that were made in respect of all 38 cases, i.e 42 - 4 again. Read Moorhead again. Your notion that ground 2 was not relevant in the 3 unsuccessful appeals is simply wrong.  It was relevant, was argued and the PO opposition was overcome.  The PO opposed disclosure of the Clarke advice and lost.  The Post Office most definitely fought the case vigorously and this is well referenced in the article.  I won't argue about my use of 'unsuccessfully', I accept that it depends what one means by unsuccessfully.
 * The unsuccessful fight that Altman, for the Post Office, put up first to keep the court away from ground 2 and then unsuccessfully to keep the number of ground 2 acquittals small goes to the heart of the subsequent problems re size and speed of compensation/redress, and the slowness of further successful appeals. It is why there are calls for the PO to be removed from the appeals and compensation processes and at the root of the government plan to grant blanket exoneration.  You may remember an earlier 'discussion' we had about exoneration.  The paragraph we are discussing is as confusing now as it was, but in a slightly different way, and it is now less correct that it was, but in a relatively unimportant way. Your sentence "Thirty-nine subpostmasters' convictions were found by the Court of Appeal to be unsafe and each prosecution to have been improper, the latter ground having been opposed by the Post Office except in four cases." is factually correct but passively plays down the actuality of the fight put up by Altman which has been described as improper and recommended to the Horizon for examination.  Two barristers were wrongly forced to withdraw from the appeal.  Altman's conflict of interest was and is questioned. This will come in the next week or so. complexity can be confusing but it has to be tackled, surely? Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO this is far too detailed to be in the lede - which, IMO is already far too long Kiwimanic (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not in the lede and I sorry if I appeared to imply that I thought it should be. It is all in the article. My purpose was to try to show that 'vigorously' properly summarised the way the Post Office, as respondent, fought the appellant Subpostmasters in the Hamilton case. I am happy with the paragraph in the lede as @Southdevonian left it, apart from the absence of vigorously. Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

LEADLENGTH
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)


 * Agree. It had been got down to four or five paragraphs but then a random editor (not someone who had been involved in the article) split the paragraphs complaining it looked like "a wall of text" (isn't that what reading is about?). And other editors have added text which isn't really necessary for introduction, which should summarize the article in a clear and concise way. I will take out a bit more. Southdevonian (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A "wall of text" puts people off. Cursory readers are far more likely to read short paragraphs than long ones. IMO the lede is still far too long. MOS:LEADLENGTH says "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." Kiwimanic (talk) 20:06, 10 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)
 * 2017 the Bates case vs PO
 * 2021 the Hamilton case and the PO appeal of that case
 * Announcement by Govt of statutory public inquiry.
 * 2024 government plans for a blanket exoneration
 * Costs of legal action etc
 * The two guidelines are not mutually exclusive. All that is required is to compose better text in order to bring together topics that at first sight seem not to be related. The guideline to follow here is LEADLENGTH, not PARAGRAPH. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Image
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)


 * Any generic of Horizon's software seems to be appropriate, as well as potentially a Wikilink to Fujitsu services offerings, if that seems appropriate and not beyond the scope of the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Post Office IT systems
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)


 * You raise a most important point. See first the section Criticism of Hamilton.  The PO worked hard to keep all its secrets, including its problems with IT accounting systems. From the early days of the scandal, i.e when it broke into the public awareness, the coverup has been aided and abetted by the use of the word Horizon. The Post Office has had problems with all its software from early 1900;, that's the nature of large software systems. Businesses universally recognise that and address them. Post Office ignored, covered up, denied them and, scandalously shipped the responsibility for the resulting effects onto others (SPMs). Capture and other named systems preceded Horizon (itself under a variety of names).  Marshall identified all this in what he labelled  "dichotomy/taxonomy".  Moorhead also addresses this Horizon name point, and the timeframe aspect.  Offences before a certain date not overturned etc. The scandal is that the Post Office prosecuted SPM for computer identified financial losses but kept secret wha it knew about the defects in its accounting systems. So has the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd
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)


 * It would make sense to replace the judgment 3 article with an article about the whole case. And the Horizon inquiry could support a separate article. This article is very long - over 11,000 words. The guidance WP:Size says articles over 9,000 words "probably should be divided or trimmed". Southdevonian (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support replacing Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3) with a comprehensive article merged with the "Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd" section of this article. And given that the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry section will grow significantly in length as the inquiry proceeds, I also support a separate article for that topic. -- Jmc (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the scandal too big for wikipedia? Or is it that there is insufficient consensus about the fundamental causes of the scandal. Paul Marshall said a long time ago:
 * Legal – legislative failure.
 * Legal – court/judicial failure.
 * Post Office mendacity/opportunism.
 * Failure in Post Office corporate governance.
 * Alan Bates said a long time ago "it is not purely the software that we are talking about. Everyone seems to homing in on the computer system. It is about the support package that works with it. It is the training and the lack of investigation." Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to ascertain the scope of a scandal or even if a scandal has occurred, only to document it. That said, it's beyond a simple flawed software system and generally an entire systemic failure from the Crown down to the Post Office and every step in between, which has been documented within the article with citations.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, of course its not. Nor is it for the article to identify culpability. But it is, as I think you might agree, for Wikipedia to document properly reported events and activities that point towards culpability.  That has been easier said than done, both in terms the RSs reporting and the article documenting reports.  That is why the scandal has continued for two decades, why every legitimate opportunity that pointed towards who did what, when and why needed documenting and why the article became over full and poorly structured.  The scandal continues. There is now a plethora of well reported allegation/accusations. They need to be marshalled. Accusations as to the systemic causes of the scandal under the headings that I quoted above in items 1, 3 & 4 have largely been identified.  It is now openly alleged that there has been a conspiracy. Item 2, Legal – court/judicial failure, is partially identified and partially remains in the 'pointed towards' category. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Post Office's right to prosecute.
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)
 * Good point. But 'rights and duties' is probably a bit long. How about Post Office's rights as private procecutor Kiwimanic (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Much much better woops, sorry, re read. Dare I now say 'No'? They don't have any rights - thats the point. They have loads of duties. How about Post Office's duties as private prosecutor or perhaps Post Office's as private procecutor.
 * All this has a part in your management section. Post Office Ltd were, by habit, treated by the courts and by barristers as they had treated Royal Mail, as a pukka state prosecutor. But whilst Royal Mail/GPO had all the regulatory management structures for their investigations and their prosecutions POL didn't. When POL was carved off it had no investigators,  no investigation department. The prosecutions were not overseen at Board level. There was no responsible director on the POL board. POL shared its general counsel with Royal Mail.  All this came out shockingly in the Inquiry on Friday. The Chairs did not know that the prosecutions were Post Office prosecutions. Alan Cook - former Independent Non-Executive Director and Managing Director of Post Office Ltd and, Adam Crozier - former CEO of Royal Mail Group Ltd and former director of Royal Mail told the inquiry that they did not know the post office prosecuted.  Cook thought it was all done by police and CPS! Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

One civil case
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)


 * The only relevance now of the Castleton case is that it was used to set a legal strategy in which the PO could protect, in court proceeding, horizon from being scrutinised. This is dealt with by Moorhead (the flat earther was his phrase if I remember correctly), by Exeter Lab, and by the Inquiry examination of the barrister (nice legal point was the phrase used to mock).  The PO mendacity in the case is awesome; the huge legal cost (PO's) to "recover" small amount should have alerted senior management to question what was going on (loads of stuff in Inquiry past and current support that view).  It set the marker to show the PO would fight any legal attack on Horizon, again well supported. Within the Scandal Castleton is the civil case equivalent of the criminal case of Misra.
 * The only relevance now of the Bates six cases (rightly exiled) are, the judges findings (contracts unlawful, Horizon unreliability), the improper non-disclosure, the covert plan to out-spend (improper case management, aggressive time wasting, misleading the court), The cost to the public purse of £100m defending a case known to be wrong showed that senior management and government knew and conspired. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That reasonably summarizes things. There's a saying, "one can sue a ham sandwich", that doesn't mean we add all litigation against ham sandwiches in an article on ham sandwiches, only appropriate and concluded litigation actions and decisions. That said, I do believe that the cost to the public exceeded that £100m and as mentioned in the article, is likely to exceed £1b - plus the initial £775m in wasted funding on the failed software development, which despite being unfit for its original purpose, was repurposed for other uses for which it was utterly unfit for. In some countries, one could make a fortune selling pitchforks and torches... Wzrd1 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With reference to the edit and moving Castleton, good stuff, but removing "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.
 * With reference again to Bates £100m. That's just the legal fees in the Bates case.  Those should have allerted the PO Board and government that the in-house lawyers were acting improperly. I believe it did and has been shown that the board knew and that government knew. That's the conspiracy.  The other monies are a different part of the scandal - Post Office mendacity/opportunism.
 * Failure in Post Office corporate governance. Legal – court/judicial failure. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't think this one case deserves its own heading when presumably there were hundreds of civil cases. As you say: "it was used to set a legal strategy in which the PO could protect, in court proceeding, horizon from being scrutinised." That's part of protecting the brand, so that's the heading it should be under. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and I support the restructuring you have been doing. The phrase 'Protecting the brand' captures all(?) important aspects of the scandal - who did what when and and why. Protecting the brand is the why at the heart of the relevant things that were done by POL and its agents. The problem with using it as a section heading is that all or most of the bits that should be documented could come under that heading. Take the Marina Hyde quote. Hyse's whole article dealt with government and management mendacity, with delay, lack of media coverage and coverup. It went in the section dealing with management. You moved it to Protecting the the brand. Good move. Its not in now. Because the phrase "protecting the brand" isn't in it?.
 * I am trying to make two points. First is that any improper activity by POL and its agents was probably done to protect the brand, and should be somewhere in the article, (subject to all the wiki disciplines etc). But if all are marshalled under protecting the brand the section will be huge. The second point is that a style of editing that either can't or won't see relevance of material, commentary etc is damaging. What part of the multiple rational "removed lengthy quote which doesn't mention "protecting the brand" and is an opinion piece by someone with no particular expertise - too many quotes in article" is valid? To my mind the relevance is clear. The fact that it was written almost a year ago shows both its pertinence and its prescience. Referring to the Media Freedom Awards commentator of the year as it does is akin to the reference earlier on this Talk page (by a different editor) to Nick Wallis as a self publicist blowing his own trumpet. Too many quotes.  What's the metric. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Separate article on the public inquiry
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)


 * Agree MapReader (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)