Talk:British Post Office scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Private Eye links

All of the links to articles in Private Eye in the references go to the current issue. JezGrove (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've relinked to the Archived page, and also added the May 2020 Private Eye special report on the whole issue. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Computerworld link

The link entitled "Some Post Office Horizon IT was 'unfit for purpose', investigators say" goes to the current issue. Nick Levine (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Modern Mann podcast episode

https://www.modernmann.co.uk/new/justicebynumbers might? want to be linked in here someplace? (An interview with one convicted postmaster and his wife.) Jbsegal (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cost

This 2011 source in Computer World says the Pathway project ".. was scrapped in 2000 after a dispute over the technology, resulting in a £180 million write-off. The same year, a renamed and expanded version of the project, now called Horizon and involving the same supplier, ICL (now Fujitsu), was announced. It modernised the Post Office counters network by installing PCs and other electronic equipment in 18,000 branches across the UK, at a cost of £1.4 billion. ... The National Audit Office consequently lambasted the Post Office for wasting as much as £881 million of taxpayers’ money as a result of the project change." So it looks like the cost was at least £1.4 billion (plus the £180 million for Pathway). This does not include any of the Post Office's subsequent legal costs. And of course, over the next few years, the compensation now due to Post Office sub-post-masters and mistresses will probably take the total much higher. I wonder what a more realistic cost might eventually be. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality and Importance

Article is tagged on several scales as Start and Low. I think it deserves better. Nick Levine (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I could not agree more - so obscure is this page!Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC) By that I mean by its title.Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Scandal deserves its own webpage/rename this webpage 'Post Office Horizon IT Scandal'

The Horizon scandal has widely been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history. The scandal (which seems to have no web page I can find) is surely more notable than the actual IT system involved yet it is covered as subsections on this webpage. It would surely be better to have its own webpage, see for example the Congressional_Post_Office_scandal. Alternatively rename this webpage. 51.9.50.245 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I would be grateful for comments and suggestions asap. My own preference is to title it 'UK Post Office Scandal' and I can see no reason not to make a change of name immediately. For such an important issue to be set out under such an obscure title is so surprising. I propose moving it.Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC). I am aware of the extensive entry under the sub-heading 'Post Office scandal' on the Paula Vennells page. But this still obscures. This is a vast scandal that encompasses much more than a person and an IT system.Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree that the scandal needs its own page. Is it best to leave this one and create a new one? The history of the IT system procurement through (International Computers Limited) and (Fujitsu) and the nature of the Horizon IT system are just one part of this still unfolding scandal. How would most people search for it? I got to it by searching for "Post Office Scandal" and then it's disambiguated from the (Congressional_Post_Office_scandal), so"UK Post Office Scandal" seems logical. What's the process for deciding/doing this? ITellComputerYes (talk) 19:57, 16 June, 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this having been moved to The Great British Post Office Scandal by @Jacksoncowes: I don't think having a "the" at the start of the article name is usual unless it's part of the actual proper name of the thing covered (e.g. The Great British Bake Off or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which are the entities' actual names, but no "the" in descriptive titles such as Campaign for the neologism "santorum"). Likewise, although Great British and Post Office are names of entities or attributive forms of state names, the word "scandal" would not be expected to be capitalised (see e.g. Watergate scandal, Dutch childcare benefits scandal) unless, again, it's part of the name of a work (e.g. The Scandal (1943 film)). And although Great British Post Office scandal wouldn't necessarily be an incorrect title, "Great British" as a demonym is not usually used in prosaic contexts (unless you're somehow trying to distinguish "from Great Britain (island)" from British in the sense of "of the United Kingdom"), and a more descriptive title such as British Post Office false convictions scandal would be clearer. --HarJIT (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I'd go with that. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The current title, The Great British Post Office Scandal, isn't appropriate and should be changed ASAP. Popcornfud (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Euphorisms

The are three problems with the second sentence of the introduction. First, as far as I can tell, 'euphorism' is not a word; it seems likely that the author meant 'euphemism.' Second, even if 'euphemism' was intended, the sentence is a non sequitur and is out of place in an introduction. Third, I've searched the cited document for 'shareholder' and I can't see any euphemisms. On these three counts, I think the sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.44.49 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Marshall lecture

This looks useful: Scandal at the Post Office: The Intersection of Law, Ethics and Politics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Post Office scandal: Government to foot bill for postmasters' compensation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Honorifics?

With respect, I think @Pol098: confuses job titles, types and honorifics. Police Officers PC Blogs and Sgt Brown are not differentiated by honorifics, and they are not different types. DC Smith is a police officer; perhaps a different type. HHJ (His or Her Honour) is a job title denoting rank (and the range of their powers). Mr Justice Fraser (his correct job title), by the removal of Mr, has been changed from a High Court judge to a Supreme Court Justice. Why leave in Lord Justice X, Y and Z, or other Mr Justices? Or Lord Falconer? The different powers of the different levels of courts, and how that has impacted the various different groups of victims, is germane to this scandal and any critical understanding of any past or future resolution. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been waiting for others to comment, in vain. I think this is an important issue which needs clarifying; I don't think there's enough in guidelines (I haven't rechecked recently). There needs to be a distinction between honorifics merely to signify "honour" (His Grace Bishop ...", and those that indicate profession or qualifications like "Dr" for medical people. I think that legal honorifics where "Her Honour Judge Smith" tells the expert legal reader that this is a different category from "Judge Smith" or "Mrs Judge Smith" is too jargony for the uninformed reader (such as myself, I clearly state); "high court judge", "circuit judge", etc. are better. But this discussion doesn't belong attached to this very specific article; perhaps the Talk for MOS:Honorific is better, or some other general discussion not connected to a specific article. Judicial and clerical honorifics are the thorniest; military and the like are fairly well understood. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Brentford Gazette, 2002

The inquiry has just (I'm following live tweets from Nick Wallis) heard about a 2002 Brentford Gazette interview with SPM Baljit Sethi, in which he said he thought Horizon was at fault. Can anyone track this article down? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Inquiry team have now put the clipping online:

• Hall, Ben (May 2002). "Post chiefs tell shopkeeper he must advertise to replace wife" (PDF). Brentwood Gazette.

It's from the Brentwood Gazette, not Brentford, but it has no date or page number. Some time in May 2002 has been suggested, and fits the context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

CEOs

Who were the CEOs from the time Horizon was installed until Vennells took over? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Post Office Ltd

1. [[David Mills]] (2002-2005)
2. [[Alan Cook]] (2006-2010)
3. Paula Vennells (2012-2019)
4. Nick Read (2019-)

Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

link deleted for Mills. I haven't checked the rest. Interesting interview at https://postandparcel.info/6141/news/interview-with-david-mills-ceo-post-office-ltd/ Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Same for Alan Cook. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible legal action against the PO

@Pol098: I am struggling with this heading. There is a significant possibility of a variety of future actions - not just civil and criminal - and not just against the PO - and perhaps not just legal actions. Civil, criminal and/or professional disciplinary actions could be commenced against PO staff, Fujitsu staff, lawyers and others involved in the widest sense. Does "Possible further legal/disciplinary actions" fit? Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jacksoncowes: I don't have a strong opinion. "Possibility of criminal action" seemed wrong (it's probably just me, but I always think of "criminal action" as what criminals do. I have the same impression on reading about police "Crime Support Units"). The whole section is a bit more like a newspaper than an encyclopaedia, about ongoing events, rather than a narrative of what has happened. I added "against the PO" to make it absolutely clear that we're not talking of action against the SPMs. "Possible further legal/disciplinary actions against the PO" doesn't really fit—by which I mean it doesn't fit neatly in the space available! "Measures against the PO"? "Legal responses against the PO?" That will leave the section suitable to add any actual measures that are taken. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pol098: Thanks, I see your point about 'legal action'! But. "against the PO" excludes Fujitsu, politicians, lawyers etc. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"... against those responsible"? "Redress sought"? "Possible legal action against those responsible"? I don't have any ideas that seem ideal. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made it "Possible legal action against the PO and others", equivalent to but shorter than "Possible legal action against the PO, Fujitsu, politicians, lawyers, etc." Pol098 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice

Perhaps no one can read this page with complete understanding, but its authors all deserve commendation for laying out all its many details for public scrutiny! Charles Clark (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Horizon (IT system)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Horizon (IT system) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Horizon (IT system) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The redirect was deleted later the same month. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 30 -- Wire723 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible typographic errors

This commendable and well-maintained article includes what seem to be exact quotations from court proceedings, but in a few cases the quotations do not seem to make sense, possibly because of omitted words. (I appreciate that such words might have been omitted from the original written legal judgement(s) and the text is reproduced here in good faith.)

The last point (4) is a simple suggestion for consistency.

1. The 3rd paragraph in Section 1 "Overview" has wording ...transactions, to undermine... . Perhaps this should read ...transactions, and to undermine... or ...transactions, and therefore to undermine... .

2. In Section 3, "Court cases", in the account of the appeal R v Christopher Trousdale & Others - December 2020, the 2nd paragraph quoting of Judge Taylor ends with the words ...and stay further proceedings an abuse of process.

Should this have read ...and stay further proceedings as an abuse of process ?

3. In Section 3, "Court cases", in the account of Judgment No. 3 (Common Issues) in Bates & Others v. Post Office Ltd., the 4th paragraph quoting Judge Fraser includes the words The statement that it is prepared to preserve documents – as though that were a concession – and the obdurate to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them, is extremely worrying.

Was a word, perhaps refusal or unwillingness , accidentally omitted between obdurate and to, shown in bold above ?

4. Occasional use of Ors instead of Others in the titles of legal cases. This may be an acceptable legal abbreviation, but its very occasional use here seems inconsistent. Applies to Bates & Ors in the 3rd paragraph of Section 1 "Overview", and also to the last case Felstead & Ors in the show/hide "Quick reference table" within Section 3 "Court cases". AconUK (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and for your interesting challenge.

1. The sentence In 2019, the Horizon Issues trial judgment in the Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd group litigation at the High Court found that software errors and defects did exist and that it was possible for these to cause apparent discrepancies or shortfalls in branch accounts or transactions, to undermine the reliability of Horizon accurately to process and to record transactions. is accurate, succinct and correctly formed.

2. This is a direct quote from a stenographer's transcript of an oral judgement. Am I right to say it shouldn't be doctored?

3. The Post Office appears, at least at times, to conduct itself as though it is answerable only to itself. The statement that it is prepared to preserve documents – as though that were a concession – and the obdurate to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them, is extremely worrying. is a direct quote from the published judgement; it is also correctly formed. Obdurate literally means 'stubborn refusal'.

4. Ors is a common legal abbreviation. It appears over forty times in the article. But I think you are right. It is used only twice in the body and twice in the drop boxes. In the body, it is inelegant and inconsistent. I think its use is correct in the other forty-two instances. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I too tripped over the quote at number 3.: Obdurate, is mostly seen as an adjective, I think; at least I'd never seen it this way, as a noun, where I'd expect obduracy instead. I went to the source cited, though, and there it was! So, myriad are the paths by which you can learn new things. Is it a particularly legal or archaic usage? I'm off to check the OED, but in meantime, the entries at wikt:obdurate v. wikt:obduarcy chime with my (unlearned) sense of the ordinary use of the word forms.

Really, I wanted an excuse to say how very informative I find this article. The complexities are marshalled and comprehensively explained. It must take much work to maintain. Congrats and thanks to the editors involved here. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comments are most appreciated by me. I have no authority to speak for any other editor involved but there are many and I imagine they too welcome your comments. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

There were some interesting stats in the closing caption of

• 3,500 people were affected (presumably: had to repay bogus losses)
• 700 convictions
• only 93 convictions overturned to date
• 18 of the 555 litigants have died without compensation

I think it would be worth including these - perhaps in a side bar - in the article, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We should also note at least four suicides. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A misleading summary statistic?

In the overview, we have:

"Between 1991 and 2015, there were 918 successful prosecutions."

While this is no doubt true (and quoted verbatim by the Doughty Street resource), those before 1999 cannot be because of Horizon, because that had not been rolled out.

The detail in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/658605/response/1576986/attach/4/FOI2020%2000186%20FOI%20Request%20Response.pdf tells the true story: that between 1991 and 1997 the rate of prosecutions per year was low, that is, a maximum of 10 in 1997. Between 1999 and 2012, between 37 and 78 prosecutions were made per year.

I believe it detracts from the argument to quote the https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/102gtzh/private-prosecutions-after-the-post-office-debacle report as the pre-1999 numbers are not immediately relevant, unless for comparison reasons. --Matt Westwood 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I certainly see the point and it is powerful. However, there are complications in the law. Previous attempts in the article to show how these seemingly arcane but really quite germane matters fed into the positions and actions taken by the Post Office, the lawyers, the judges and the courts caused the article to be too bulky and too confusing. This is a very complex case; it is a mystery to me that within Wikipedia's world it remains of low importance. The biggest miscarriage in British legal history, involving thousands of victims over a 20 year period, but it is rated as of low importance by the WikiProjects Law & United Kingdom!

Prior to 1999 it was necessary to prove that a computer was operating properly and was not used improperly before any statement in a document produced by the computer could be admitted in evidence. After that date the law changed to put the onus on the other side to show that the computer was not operating properly (see https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-records-evidence). Some say that is virtually impossible. There remain other references to this seemingly minor cause in the article. Paul Marshall's points 1&2, now at para 3 of the article, allude to this, as does the single sentence of paragraph 4.4. To set it all out in a way that is acceptable to Wikipedia is not easy.

None of that should be taken to mean that I do not agree with the recent edits. They were needed. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this was the amendment to section 69 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act, made by the government in 1999 as recommended by the Law Commission a year or two earlier. Back then, the concern was that people were getting off speeding offences by insisting that the Police prove that their speed monitoring equipment was working properly, and the law was changed so that courts had to assume "mechanical equipment" (which subsequently came to include computer systems) was working correctly, unless the defendant could prove otherwise. A classic instance of both lawyers and politicans trying to solve the small problem under their nose without thinking about the wider and future implications. MapReader (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I found this sentence in the article confusing. As the article is about the Horizon scandal, wouldn't it be more useful to give the number of prosecutions related to Horizon, with perhaps just a mention of earlier prosecutions to show that they increased after Horizon? The problem is that it is impossible to say from just the Whatdotheyknow figures. Were any post 1999 prosecutions related to non-Horizon matters? Were the 104 "unknown dates" evenly spread from 1991-2015 or were they all from earlier years? I have changed the sentence slightly but I still think it could be better. Maybe there are some more comprehensive figures somewhere. Southdevonian (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Convictions

Just related to the general structure and content of the article, I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience of legal proceedings. I'm struck by how many people were convicted while so few prosecutions have been quashed. Clearly, more convictions may be quashed - as he article notes. It seems, though, that a large number of those convicted pled guilty. I am more than aware that sometimes people who are not guilty of an offence plead guilty for various reasons, but some of these people went to prison and it is unusual that people should plead guilty to a charge so serious as to send them to prison when they believe they are not guilty. This is a material point, because the thrust of the article is that the convictions are wrong. This might be just my reading, and I don't mean to disrespect anyone wrongly convicted. But I do think that if there are to be so many references to wrongful convictions then there should be some references to guilty pleas since it is clearly very hard to overturn a verdict where there was a guilty plea. Finally, it is perfectly possible that other evidence of fraud was present in those cases where there was a guilty plea; we simply don't know. The number of people convicted of dishonesty did go up sharply after the introduction of the system, but that does not necessarily point towards the system itself; there is sometimes an uptick in fraud when a large new system, particularly with known faults, is introduced into any large organisation. I also find it a bit odd that there is no mention of the executives who came before the Paula Vennells; it's easy to see Vennell's liability, but why no mention of the executives in charge while the actual problems unfolded? Just some thoughts as I am listening to the latest news on the radio today. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Article isn't in great shape

Hate to say it, but this subject deserves a better article. It's unwieldy, cluttered, has no cohesive narrative, and it's generally hard to read.

For example, the first section is called "Overview". Articles shouldn't have overview sections. The lead is the overview. So there's already a lump of redundancy and a confusing information hierarchy right from the beginning of the article body.

I will attempt to do some work on it myself, but I wanted to raise these issues here first, in case it motivates anyone to help out... Popcornfud (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree. But that’s pretty common, for a story that suddenly breaks into public view - suddenly a shedload of editors take interest and tons of individual edits deliver a dog’s dinner with no coherence or structure. My experience is that this can’t be put right, now. When the story drops off the front pages, a few editors can return to the article and then make it shipshape. MapReader (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, though, I've checked in on this article a few times over the last couple of years and it seemed to have all the same problems. Popcornfud (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. I only got as far as the overview. Is it really necessary to list all the cases cited in the various different court cases and then have a reference for each? Even though you can hide the lists, it adds massively to the references. Southdevonian (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If articles are not supposed to have overview sections, would it be possible to replace the overview section with a timeline? Southdevonian (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Timelines are generally discouraged on (English) Wikipedia - the presence of a timeline can make people add every minor event (non-encyclopedic content), while also being in such a list format that people tend to not want to expand on the most important parts where relevant (not including encyclopedic content). And it's rarely the best way to present information. There is no one way to structure and format an article, but it should be cohesive and the best way to effectively present the relevant information. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Bondegezou: Re-naming the Overview section to "Timeline of events" without changing the content isn't a better header, nor an improvement to content. Perhaps you can contribute to discussing improvements. Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have posted at length to this Talk page, discussing improvements. I would’ve thought other editors were probably quite tired of me banging on by now! Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of American English spellings in articles with a British subject

This article uses the American spelling "judgment" throughout. While I accept that an American legal case (e.g. Roe v Wade) should use that spelling, I really think we should stick with British English spellings in articles that are solely about English Law legal cases so can we use judgement, please? LumpiSpoerl (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The spelling "judgment" is used in the UK in an official legal context, for example here [1] and here [2]. Southdevonian (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting point (still very much in learning mode here). Do you think article subjects should conform to the local rules which apply to subject? If no, prob US English best for everything. Not sure, though. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This article should use British spellings. WP:ENGVAR refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you repeatedly use EN-US spelling then you run the risk of replicating the problems that the Scots Wikipedia continues to have. EN-US and EN-GB are not the same language and it is not merely a matter of variant spelling. To use EN-US in a EN-GB context goes against the general objectives of Wikipedia and promotes a lack of methodical fact checking. Simplistically, searching for "color" will not match with "colour" which might well ensure that Wikipedians miss valuable and germane information. In matters of poetry, "color" and "colour" appear to rhyme differently which could lead to particular allusions that are relevant to EN-GB being missed by a first language EN-US Editor. EN-US is not "best for everything". EN-US varies in grammar and militates against parallel variation within EN-GB grammar that is part of British Culture. MOS:TIES indicates the direction of travel here. It is not merely a matter of switching around a few spellings and hoping for the best. While Wikipedia is not original research, the failure to use EN-GB in an EN-GB context can have the unreasonable outcome of deterring the Reader from further enquiry or reasearch on their own accord. 77.97.140.58 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@77.97.140.58 I agree. In the case of headings and proper nouns (e.g. color or Pearl Harbor vs Sydney Harbour Bridge) it is worth standardising or keeping the original.

However, when it comes to details such as this, English Law makes judgements whereas U.S. courts make judgments.

The final point about retaining interest is also pertinent as an article more likely to interest readers from one particular English-speaking region seems to be better served by using the spelling rules of that region. LumpiSpoerl (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about the distinctive use of judgement/judgment. The words are, however, not absolutely interchangeable. One is the ability to form a opinion and the other is distinctly a formed legal opinion. Pedantic thought it is, that is an importance difference. The US Court System, for whatever reasons, does not make that distinction while the UK Court System does. Which is then part of the distinctive regional character for EN-GB and points to a substantive difference between UK and US Legal processes. Failure to recognise that can lead to inadvertent interpretation of reference material when reading - particularly older - documents. Leading to misinformation; which, is the general point being made about the Scots Wikipedia. (Which is an example of how the process can run to an extreme not pearl clutching about the EN-GB being marginalised.) 77.97.140.58 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank heavens we got there at last. We, in the UK, all make judgements, including judges when they are e.g. gardening. Only courts hand down hand down Judgments. Two different words Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Post Office and Fujitsu conduct

I removed this because the last thing the article needs at the moment is another section of "law student's case notes" and the references were not formatted. If anyone wants to reduce it to a properly referenced and formatted paragraph and put it somewhere in the Court section then go ahead. Southdevonian (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This material comes from the personal website of a lawyer who is commenting on the public inquiry. So it is not a good source, and this article is not the place to add lengthy commentaries on the evidence heard by the inquiry. It is better to wait until the inquiry publishes a report, or to have only very brief summaries - however important the evidence might turn out to be. And references should be formatted, not bare urls. Southdevonian (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This article reads like a law student's case notes.

It needs cutting down, dramatically. As it is, it surely serves almost no readers who visit it. I've read Wikipedia entries on quantum physics topics that were more layman-friendly than this one. 92.5.200.8 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I agree. Southdevonian (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. In particular, the lead section of any article is supposed to be a summary and overview of the topic. That this is followed by a second section, originally “overview” and now “timeline of events”, doing the same job at slightly greater length, is very unhelpful. And indeed wrong. I would suggest the entire “timeline” section needs deleting, anything critical written into the lead where it isn’t already covered, and then the body start by setting out the story, chronologically. MapReader (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am working on combining the intro and timeline - paragraph by paragraph. Southdevonian (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Timelines don't belong, please don't waste your time making one! Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant I was removing the Timeline and then feeding some of it into the intro. The Timeline is now gone, but still have some work to do on expanding the intro. Southdevonian (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead section should mention that no prosecutions have been made.

The lead section doesn't mention that no prosecutions have been made against those responsible for the convictions. It is one of the key facts about the topic, so shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead section? It currently mentions that the Post Office is being investigated, and that a public inquiry is ongoing. That doesn't mean that readers would know that no prosecutions have been made. Opok2021 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that the Met have opened an investigation, not that - at this stage - they haven't made arrests. As updates become public they can be added. Prosecution of witnesses, etc., does not usually follow overturning of convictions although it does happen sometimes, so it is not an important point in this case. Certainly not for the intro. Southdevonian (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Horizon IT system

Same section, or similar passages, in twice. It needs a good proofread to see what's been duplicated word for word . 2A00:23C8:4F06:4F01:196D:D556:26BF:6412 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I could only find one sentence that duplicated information. Perhaps you could point out any other passages. Southdevonian (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Access to Computer Weekly articles

This article uses several references to Computer Weekly articles. Most of them cannot be read without a 'corporate email address'. Does anyone know how to get access to read these please? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto, they're all available via the Internet Archive, e.g. [3]. If you can't find certain ones then maybe REX can help. – Isochrone (T) 08:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Isochrone for the tips. I did try the Internet Archive, but it seems very hit-and-miss, many are archived there with the requiring a 'corporate email address' message too, so cannot be read. Trying a different date/time usually works though. I was wondering if there was a more convenient way to access them available somewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction very weaselly

"The Post Office insisted" etc. – An office cannot insist, there are people that could and should be named that made those decisions. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Organisations have a voice when they make statements, etc. The intro is a summary of the article and not the place to get into apportioning blame amongst individuals. Southdevonian (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead should use description closer to common reporting

I think these words should be used in the lead: commonly described as "one of the UK’s worst miscarriages of justice". There seems to be a fair consensus in British reporting using these words and very similar to summarise it. Citations with very similar wording should be easy to compile. eg: [4][5][6]

Instead, the current lead uses this phrase: "an extensive series of individual miscarriages of justice". I don't think this page should be inventing it's own way to describe the scandal as a whole if differs in meaning from common reporting, and at least should have a citation for that wording. The current lead differs in meaning in a two respects:

1) It seeks to distance and disconnect each case from each other. The word "individual" might be interpreted as "isolated" despite the evidence being that they were precipitated by a common set of bugs in the same software and pressed unfairly by a single organisation with singular intent.

2) Unlike the common reporting, it doesn't provide the contextual severity and cultural segnificance. The common reporting uses a description positions the severity in respect to other miscarriages of justice in the UK (close to the top).

I'm not aware of any contention over the commonly reported description, so I think it would be fair for this page to use the same 2A00:23C6:B30F:AC01:F836:AC1E:E658:FD4C (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have used the term used by the CCRC and already referenced to the BBC in the article - widespread. Southdevonian (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits - I would prefer it without quotes as it is not original. I put "it has been described...." because the CCRC for example as well as the BBC (and probably other people) said it before Sunak, altho I suppose something assumes more importance if the PM says it. How about "It was described by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the nation's history."? Or "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak acknowledged it as one of the greatest....."? With the quote later in the article. Southdevonian (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

How many post offices?

Is there a reliable source on roll-out and number of post offices? At the moment they appear contradictory - 13,000 by 2001, then back to "at least" 11,500 (quote from Vennells) in 2013 and then eventually 18,000? In February 2001, the minister for competitiveness told Parliament that 17,650 post offices were connected and 18,500 would be by the end of March [7]. Southdevonian (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Post office closures in the interim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, according to the graph on page 8 of this report [8]. Southdevonian (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Alan Bates

Note that Alan Bates (subpostmaster) has been created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Shame about the hyphen though. Seriously, I just wondered if he is a sub-postmaster or a justice campaigner? Southdevonian (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost as famous as this guy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I corrected the hyphenation but was reverted. plus ça change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess someone ought to check through the millions of KBs on hyphen usage at WP:MoS? What do mere dictionaries know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sub-postmaster or sub postmaster but definately not subpostmaster~~~

Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That second one would be underwater? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about the spelling at Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters above.

Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, Southdevonian, Martinevans123, and Jacksoncowes:. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks DeFacto. [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You don’t think Bates himself knew how to spell the job title, when he created the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance? MapReader (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's part of the discussion though - should we be using the proper name from the PO job title or the generic English noun. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

History and article size

By about 2022 the article the article was trying to cover events that had started about 20 years previously; but a scandal that then obviously still had a long way to run. The article was way over size. Many editors trimmed it and many tried to deal with the so-called ″aftermath″ which was in reality an ongoing scandal. We are at that stage again now, both in terms of the size (9779 words), and the fact that the scandal is clearly far from ending.

The analysis of causes of one of the significant heroes of this saga, Paul Marshal was:

1. Legal – legislative failure.
2. Legal – court/judicial failure.
3. Post Office mendacity/opportunism.
4. Failure in Post Office corporate governance.

Of the first some of this has, I think, been addressed but is not described in the article. For example, relatively recent statute required courts to take evidence from computers as unarguable. Has that been repealed? Of the second, see the work of Bristol University and others questioning the ethical and legal behaviour of all levels within the legal profession. The third and fourth are getting media attention and will increase. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it all started in 1999 with deployment of an inadequately tested system. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually in the mid 1990s with the commissioning of a scheme under PFI designed as a plan that got significantly changed when the DWP/BA walked away in the late 1990s. MapReader (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the "swipe card" idea to get your benefits was eventually canned. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I urge those now working to better this article to be aware of the factors that make this a scandal rather than just a string of events started by a dicky computer program. Andrew Rawnsley highlights the current enthusiasm for hailing steps being taken towards redress amid a reluctance to expose failure.The abuse of unaccountable power is at the wicked heart of the Post Office scandal "Politicians are hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates. There’s less enthusiasm for acknowledging a collective failure." Scandals involve skullduggery and coverup. Not easy for respectable sources to publish and rightly impossible for Wikipedia to describe before they do. Published pointers towards the wrongs that Rawnsley discusses were in this wiki article, but less now. For example, the judge in Bates severely criticised witnesses, They were named in the judgment and in the article, but not now. The judge referred unnamed witnesses to the DPP. In 2019 this was reported in the article. These matters currently appear in the article under the Criminal investigation into Post Office Limited section (Fujitsu?). This short section quotes from two good sources but misses the question that arises from the actuality, What's been going on these last 4 years? The Guardian article points to the

sophistry of the quoted police statement by mentioning its lack of clarity but this article doesn't. The judge's trenchant criticism of Angela van den Bogerd is gone from this article. She has made a recent appearance in the press complaining that she was misrepresented in the television docudrama. Would anyone reading this article today know of her part in this scandal? They would have 4 years ago.

I have every understanding of the need to edit, remove, add, trim etc and, possibly, of the approaching need to split. This article has reached the size beyond which it becomes hard to read. Good editing is not the same as simple precis without proper knowledge. Many of the criticisms on this Talk page are valid and are welcomed by me. But care needs to be taken to avoid removing published material that points to the skullduggery. An article about a scandal must say or work towards saying what was done and not done, what shouldn't and should have been done, and by whom. Contrary to the talk page bombast this should be done slowly and carefully. Governments, civil servants, politicians, Post Office senior management, Fujitsu, the judicial system, judges, and lawyers are all in the frame. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

System suppliers

Another gap in the article seems to be who provided the various components of the system. According to one of the Computer Weekly articles that I managed to get access to on archive the other day (although I can't find it again now with Google), Oracle, Microsoft, BT, and maybe others were involved in the project along side Fujitsu/ICL. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The technical appendix to the 2019 judgment mentions some suppliers. Software from Escher Group, database from Oracle, networking by Verizon, first-line support by Atos. -- Wire723 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A reference-free introduction

• @Mikeblas: The manual of style says introductions can have refs or be ref-free, if everything is referenced in text. I prefer ref-free intros, so does at least one other editor here. When I started working on the intro I put in two references of articles that summarised the case - one from the BBC and one from the Guardian. I then took them out to keep the intro ref-free. All the text is referenced in the body of the article, so it doesn't matter if those particular refs don't appear elsewhere in the article. Or you can always find a place for them if you think they are worth keeping.

Southdevonian (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you removed the "Guardianexplain" reference definition which is used elsewhere in the article. Removing the definition left the article with undefined reference errors, and placed it in the Category:Pages with broken reference names error tracking category. You've now gone and recreated that error, so the article again has referencing problems.

Why did you restore the undefined reference condition?

You also removed the "Public hearing session: Preliminary Hearing on List of Issues", "Human Impact Hearings announced by Chair for February & March 2022", "Post Office scandal ruined lives, inquiry hears ", "Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Statement of Approach 004", and "Post Office Inquiry begins phase three as compensation delays continue" references ... as well as the prose that explains the timeline of these inquiries.

MOS:CITELEAD does not say there's a simple choice. Instead, it says that the lead must conform to the verifiability guideline, like everything else; but might be omitted if they're redundant. The article is quite long and involved, but I'm not seeing the specific text you deleted elsewhere in the article. For sure, the "hearing on list of issues", "human impact hearings", and "phase three" references aren't repeated. These inquiries don't seem to be mentioned. I did find the "Approach 004" reference, though.

I don't think its appropriate to delete the referenced prose descriptive of the timeline altogether. And it's certainly not right to re-introduce the referencing error that I fixed to the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not about these edits, but for reference, doesn't the MOS (or maybe V) advise that if there is particularly controversial information (or that which could be easily challenged) in the lead then it is preferred for this to be referenced in-line (despite the widespread preference for ref-free leads)? Do we have any such information in the lead? Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I don't understand your question. I don't think there's widespread preference for ref-free leads in general, and I don't see that concensus built here specifically, either.

  [WP:MOSLEAD]] says "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." Here, the lead section is getting larger than that, so maybe the best idea is to restore that trimmed paragraph, including its references, and place it later in the article. That paragraph tells an important part of this story, and it was severely trimmed because someone removing references became a priority. I strongly disagree with that.

  If you can clarify your question, I can try to answer it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can restate my simple question, if it helps. Remember how I started with Not about these edits, so please don't start debate over the content removal. I asked: Do we have any such [particularly controversial or that which could be easily challenged] information in the lead?

  As for widespread preference for ref-free leads, your quote from the MOS outright says this is the case. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification! Well, sure. There are facts and figures (amount of the settlement, number of postmasters, the timeline itself, the backing or responsible parties, ...) There's some omission, too. For examples: "courts began to quash convictions" (when? how many?) implies that they're all done. Later in the article we learn less than 20% have been remedied. The dates don't line up, or at least aren't clear in scope; "between 1999 and 2015", then "in 2019" and "in December 2020" and "in April 2021" and "in September 2020". "from campaigners" is vague, and only one "campaign" is mentioned in the article body.

  Normally, references bolster statements so that they can be quickly checked to sort out confusion. That's not here.

  The lede has grown to six paragraphs (tho a couple are pretty short) and seems far too long to me -- too detailed, and just as disjoint as the body. I think fixing this would resolve the issue of referencing being missing from the lede. If the lede didn't have so many details, it wouldn't beg for references.

  By the way, I originally came here to fix the hard referencing errors, and because I was concerned about the referenced material that was deleted from the article (and has yet to be replaced). I've spent a bit more time with the article, and it's in pretty bad shape. The sections aren't cohesive or accretive and read more like a disjoint collection than an informative essay presented with a solid framework. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  it's in pretty bad shape - oh we all know. I might have to read up on the scandal and just take an angle-grinder to the article myself to make it at least readable. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  There was one typo in the intro, which I have corrected - the convictions started to be quashed in 2020 not 2010 of course. Otherwise the dates are all correct and clear. People were convicted between 1999 and 2015 and then the convictions started to be quashed in 2020. "Courts began to quash convictions from 2020" does not imply they have all been quashed, and the very next sentence says "some victims are still fighting to have their convictions overturned". The JFSA included many campaigners. Apart from that one typo the facts and figures are all okay - the £20K was a simple bit of maths (which were are allowed to do) but can easily come out - 736 has become over 700 which I cannot see any objection to.

  As for length, I have been looking at the featured article for 1 January 2024 Koala. The intro has no references and is about the same length as the one in this article, even though the article itself is considerably shorter - about two-thirds the length. Southdevonian (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Talking of reading up on the scandal - has anyone here read the book by Nick Wallis? That might help. Southdevonian (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes do! Read and read. It is very evident that those attempting to get this page in order need to do quite a lot of reeding. This scandal has a great more to it now and yet to come. The Wyn inquiry has just restarted. Try Professor Moohouse. https://richardmoorhead.substack.com/p/how-soon-is-now-a-quick-post-on-whats?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-res tack-comment&r=1qy3u5 To get a flavour. Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure what the point of comparing this article to Koala is. Koala earned its FA status a bit more than a decade ago, and also WP:WAX. More importantly, the articles are on very different types of subjects, and therefore will have very different shapes. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've boldly rewritten the lede, cutting it from 575 words to 410 words. (It's almost thirty percent shorter, then.) Perhaps, more importantly, the rewrite reveals events chronologically.

  One item was moved elsewhere in the article. Other bits of text were deleted, since they were superfluous. I feel like I identified a conflict where the previous lede said that "In September 2020, the government established the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry", but the article says that this was established "On 26 Feburary 2020". Seems like the establishment date is when when "Wyn Williams, began work in autumn" ... but the specific "September 2020" date has no support from the body of the article. This same paragraph of the lede says "evidence is being heard", implying this is still going on. The article doesn't make it clear when this inquiry is running, or when it is expected to end.

  At the same time, Southdevonian removed a link from the article -- isn't that the ComputerWeekly article that broke the case? -- and I restored it as it doesn't require any registration for me to read. I'll enhance those external links presently. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  When I clicked on the link I got three lines of the article and then

  "Continue Reading This Article

  Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including E-Guides, news, tips and more."

  It then asked for a corporate email address and had a couple of boxes to tick to agree to having data processed, etc. Southdevonian (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  It didn't do that for me. (Other article did, tho). It's often possible to link a readable copy of the article from the Wayback machine as an archived copy, which I did ... but that was reverted. DeFacto, what specific part of WP:EL are you thinking about when you removed that link? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ELREG "Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." Southdevonian (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Mikeblas, WP:ELNO item 1, it says: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. I can't see anything relevant on that page that isn't, or couldn't be, covered in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Numbers mystery

The lead says that between 1999 and 2015 over 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted. Later in the article it says that by 2013 there were over 11,500 post offices using the system. Do we have any clues as to why (assuming each of the 900 were from different post offices) only around 8% of the post offices were affected if they all used the same software? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the place for general discussion about the scandal, rather than specifically on the content of the article, but my understanding is that the most common cause for the errors appears to relate to power or connectivity problems, resulting in transactions going missing or being corrupted, which would affect only those locations with such issues (often those in remote locations or with inadquate premises or poor equipment), with other errors arising from bugs that were only applicable to rare combinations of circumstance that therefore wouldn crop up only very occasionally. It's also likely that there is some under-reporting particularly where errors were small and simply made good. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks like a gap in the article's coverage to me, so perhaps we can include more about this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ooooh, that looks like quite a crucial detail, if it can be verified. It suggests that any amount of pre-implementation testing might have missed that. And that large discrepancies might have been a product of size of transactions and times of power/connectivity outage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

p.s. in terms of system function, there's really no distinction between "large discrepancies" and "small discrepancies". Either the sums tallied at the end of the day, or they didn't. Small discrepancies were likely to have been "swept under the carpet" i.e. made up my personal payments, by sub-postmasters who did not want to appear foolish and/or did not have the time to investigate. None of this "evidence" will ever get any where near the public inquiry, of course? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that it is a tiny bit of mitigation for their insistence that the system didn’t have these errors, since problems arising from interruptions (which might only be for fractions of a second) in power or connectivity wouldn’t be replicable on the terminals they would have had at Fujitsu and Post Office HQ. It also explains why replacing the kit sometimes resolved (and sometimes created) an ongoing problem. It’s from the detail within Wallis’s book, as I recall, but it’s not yet established as fact. Maybe the inquiry will spell it out, eventually? MapReader (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It was suggested this morning (on BBC Radio 4's Today programme) that the discrepancies had arisen because of lack of positive feedback to the operator, that a transaction has been accepted, had led them to repeat the transaction. Perhaps this is also in Wallis's book? It sounds like a problem in HMI design or system lag or a combination of both. The customer-facing operating environment probably also played a part. Will the inquiry go to this level of detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The evidence given just an hour ago at the inquiry suggested the system had difficulty in telling whether multiple transactions were duplicate or separate, which the guy said was a recurring problem. So it may well be that if a SPMr repeatedly entered the same transaction, this wasn’t recognised back at the server. It might also explain the Jo Hamilton incident, as dramatised, where she was told to enter something agsin, and her discrepancy doubled. MapReader (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that over 2,600 postmasters (who had to pay back money, but were not prosecuted) have been compensated so far by the Post Office, it isn't correct to assume that the 900 prosecuted demonstrates the full-scale of the problem. Nor does the 2,600 compensated to date. Potentially every post office may have been affected to a greater or lesser degree, but we current cannot know (and potentially never will). Mauls (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Timeline

Could someone knock up a timeline showing who was in charge and who was responsible government minister from 1999 to present day? 81.110.169.44 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add one yourself if you think it would improve the article. Southdevonian (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I certainly think that both Peter Mandelson's and Tony Blair's involvement in the early years has been neglected!

I'm not confident in editing an article of such importance, but I am sure both of them played a very important role in the development and early roll-out. Keith T. 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit344 (talk • contribs)

It would require sources showing their involvement (and it to be worthy of inclusion) before anything can be added. Tony Blair's witness statement is online, the only mention of Mandelson's involvement in evidence adduced so far is a letter he sent to Stephen Byers. Neither of them have been interesting enough to have featured in the journalism to date. Mauls (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Adam Crozier

Shouldn't Adam Crozier be mentioned (other than as currently in the title of a source) in the article? Our article on him has a paragraph about the scandal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

To include a mention of Adam Crozier, there needs to be something relevant about Crozier to include. He is not generally mentioned in any of the journalism on the subject, as no actual involvement or link to him directly has yet been identified (his position as overarching group CEO of Royal Mail Group during the early part of the narrative doesn't mean he had knowledge or was an actor in any way in these events, unlike, say Paula Vennells was later). That would leave any mention in the "Well he should have known!" category (which is what the comment in his own article basically is, which isn't really fact-based encyclopedic content. It may be that information will come out of the inquiry that will change this, however. Mauls (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Who is "Frasier J"?

Why is Peter Fraser (judge) identified as "Frasier J" throughout this article? Is that a common British practice, or some honorific, or ... ? It confused me a bit until I found the link for the name. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Because he (due to his position) is known as Justice. Mr Justice Fraser, for example, (and yes, Mr, not Sir or Lord) is how he would be called in the relevant circumstances. I don't know more, but yeah, that's it. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The BBC for example calls him Mr Justice Fraser: "But in December's High Court judgment, Mr Justice Fraser said..." [10]. I think Fraser J is more of a legal usage, for example in Josephine Hamilton and Post Office the judgment said "49. Fraser J found that POL did have access to the causes..." But he can also be called Justice Fraser (without the Mr) - this one in The Guardian.[11]. I think in the article it would be better to call him Justice Fraser rather than Fraser J. Southdevonian (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations! I agree. I didn't know who "Frasier J" was (rap star?) and when googin' for it, I don't get useful results. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Justice Blogs would, I think, be correct for a judge of the UK Supreme Court, not for any other judge. Circuit Judge is His/Her Honour, referred to as Judge xxxx. High Court Judge is Mr of Mrs Justice, in written stuff Fraser J and addressed in court as my lord etc, in other spheres as Sir Peter Fraser. High Court Judge of Appeal Lord/Lady Justice (the first lady appeal court judge was called Lord Justice Butler-Sloss till the law was changed) also addressed in Court as my lord etc., in writing Fraser LJ. In the cases that went to appeal from magistrates (their worships) courts to the Crown Court where Her Honour Judge whatshername sat, she was addressed as my lady because an appeal is a high court matter and she sat as a high court judge for those cases. A Crown Court can deal with high court cases; the judge has to be licensed if that is the correct term. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)