Talk:British Post Office scandal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Does the article need extracts from the Horizon inquiry transcripts?

As I said in the previous section, the article is very long and difficult to read. I think it does not need extracts from the Horizon inquiry transcripts (potentially a vast amount of material). If anything noteworthy is said at the inquiry it gets into the mainstream media, which are better sources than original inquiry transcripts. Southdevonian (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Southdevonian (talk) Yes it does. The smoking gun, i.e. Clarke advice, leading to the CK review, leading to the Altman review, leading to advice by ..... to the Post Office not to disclose, led to jail and suicide. It is right at the nub of the scandal. The submission I quoted led to the chair of the Inquiry asking, very publicly, for the parties to waive privilege and that was very quickly agreed by all, including the Govennment owning Post Office. Yes, its a bit long, possibly should be trimmed, not reverted. The lengthy stuff about Horizon as a computer package should be shortened, as should the stuff about implementation, and about Second Sight. Newspaper articles about dry difficult matters like disclosure are rare. Marshall's sentence "Given the emergence of the shredding advice, shortly before the Court of Appeal hearing in March this year, one is bound to enquire as to whether Mr Clarke had intentionally withheld from him the prosecution file." containing so much but no allegation is a good example. The Telegraph covered the shredding but in what detail. The connection between the very big bigwig is discussed on blogs.

Delay that is so helpful to wrongdoers surely has no place on wikipedia? Marshall quote is over two years old. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the section on Horizon needs shortening. As does the section on Court cases. But what the article does not need is extracts from the inquiry. There will eventually be a published report. And meantime the media are reporting on the inquiry, and they can be used as reliable sources. If someone says something important at the inquiry it will be reported. The Clarke advice dates to 2013, by which time most of the convictions that this article is about had already taken place, so it was not responsible for the convictions or consequences. It reminded the Post Office of their obligations as prosecutors. Blogs are not reliable sources, by the way. Southdevonian (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Southdevonian (talk)Your comment that the Clarke is better in Hamilton is valid, yes it might be. It could usefully sit in a number of the court case sections. I also think that the court sections could now be shortened because the stuff has slowly over time been reported. It, Clarke etc, existed before Bates but wasn't disclosed then as the law and ethics demanded it should. That's where the scandal deepened and the coverup changed gear. You asked just a few days ago what was in it. That in itself is an indication of how little it has yet been reported. The most important aspect of the Clarke, CK and Altman 'reviews' is the non disclosure of them, indeed the non disclosure of their existence, rather than the contents (I an not sure they have ever been published). The unsuccessful attempt to prevent them going before the Appeal was scandalous. The very late and partial appearance in the appeal aided the argument for Ground 2, which the court initially indicated it would not allow. Marshall intended to argue that the court must hear that argument. Wether he was right or wrong, wise or foolish to intend to do that I don't know. The argument was later made and led to the potential for proper compensation for the victims. Compensation for one who can can satisfy a court that the Post Office wanted to hurt. etc. like C perhaps is in for mega bucks The argument here, that inquiry stuff shouldn't be used is no different than the argument that court judgments shouldn't have been used. It has taken years for the sparse reporting that has occurred. That is why the TV prog is having such an effect. Guardian this morning, 6pm news tonight. This didn't happen when Bates and Hamilton finished. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

P.s The first part of the lead used to mention the various victims who weren't taken to court. Thats all gone. The number in the lead now looks silly against the 4000? victims. I am notnin any way trying to imply that you or anyone in particular is responsible for that. The page has been nibbled at over a long time with little apparent understanding of the whole picture.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the first sentence, which defines the scandal as miscarriages of justice, that is people wrongly convicted in criminal courts or wrongly found against in civil cases. It by definition excludes the people who were never taken to court but were forced to pay money they didn't owe or had their contracts terminated. The latter groups do get a mention in the next paragraph. Southdevonian (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Clarke advice is published here [1]. But please no extracts or quotes from it unless published in an RS! I think we will have to wait to see how it fits into the bigger picture regarding disclosure failures at the Post Office and possible prosecutions. Southdevonian (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No the article does not need extracts from the Horizon inquiry transcripts. We should only use independent and reliable secondary sources, and not include anything not covered in those. See WP:REPUTABLE and WP:BESTSOURCES for the Wiki policy on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Basic facts are missing from the article

Things that every reader will want to know, but which are missing from, or well hidden in, the article are:

• How many sub-post offices were there in the UK, by jurisdiction (England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland), at the time?
• How many sub-postmasters were there?
• How many of the sub-postmasters were prosecuted in each jurisdiction?
• How many were convicted of a crime in each jurisdiction?
• How many were exonerated in each jurisdiction?
• How many were compensated in each jurisdiction?

Shouldn't we try to make all of these, at least, clear in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to find them and insert them. A few points though: the number of post offices changed substantially over the time period; the overturning of convictions is ongoing and there is a proposal for exonerating all those whose convictions were based on Horizon data; compensation is ongoing. Southdevonian (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If I could find them I certainly would add them. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you be able to tell me exactly what The Times says about number of convictions? The problem is there are two sets of figures floating around. Some give the total number of prosecutions/convictions and some give just those where the Post Office brought the case. And some I suspect don't bother to distinguish between prosecutions and convictions. Southdevonian (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The Times says: "Between 2000 and 2015 the Post Office pursued about 900 prosecutions, securing 700 convictions for offences including theft, fraud and false accounting, sending 236 people to prison. A further 2,800 were asked to pay back money but escaped prosecution". It sounds clear to me. If there are other interpretations we need to add that discussion to the article, attributing and giving each of the various takes on it. We should not mix-and-match numbers from the different accounts though. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Remember that just last week someone who had been imprisoned came forward, having heard about the inquiry but previously been unaware about the campaign and the rest. Hard to believe, but there we are. And there are more who have had shortfalls, made them good, and are only coming to light now. So there isn’t a fully accurate picture as yet as to the full extent. There is also a clear risk of bandwagon-jumpers, given the compensation on offer and the pressure for a quick rather than thorough settlement process. MapReader (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks DeFacto. The Times sounds clear and matches the PO information about 700 Post Office convictions. But that figure of 700, which you can see here [2] specifically excludes those who were prosecuted by other bodies (Crown Prosecution Service, Scottish and NI prosecutors). When it comes to these the PO is less clear. They say here [3] that there were 283 prosecutions by other bodies. Do they mean convictions? Plus there have been to date nearly 3,000 claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme, that is, people who were not convicted but lost money. [4]. These figures are, as MapReader says, not definitive. More claims are coming in all the time. And even the 700 figure depends on a Post Office decision about the extent to which the convictions were based on Horizon data, which may be subject to appeal. Eventually we will be given a definitive figure but until then I think we have to say that figures are not exact. For the time being, I think this BBC article [5] reports the PO figures most accurately. Perhaps the article would benefit from a short section after the intro explaining the numbers. And what happened to the small number of Crown Post Office workers with Horizon convictions? The sources always talk about subpostmasters - presumably that includes the few who were actually Crown Office workers. Southdevonian (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole scandal is about miscarriages of justice - that is, unsafe convictions and innocent people. The beginning of the intro should reflect that and not use ambiguous wording. No all subpostmasters convicted of crimes during the period 1999-2015 are having their convictions overturned - in Hamilton 39 people had their convictions overturned and 3 people lost their appeal, so it is not a question of guilty people having convictions overturned. Southdevonian (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian, which part of the article body unambiguously and with reliable sources supports the assertion that each and every conviction was a miscarriage of justice and each shortfall was 'phantom'? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added some figures from BBC to the Proposed legislation section, although perhaps they would be better in the Compensation section. The non-convicted false shortfalls are already mentioned in the Compensation section. Southdevonian (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian, according to The Guardian, Scotland's chief prosecutor disagrees. She is reported as saying: not every case in which Horizon evidence is present will represent a miscarriage of justice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We know that already because 3 of the 42 appellants in Hamilton did not have their convictions overturned. In those cases there was evidence besides Horizon. But this article is about the miscarriages of justice - those people who were convicted on the basis on Horizon evidence. Apart from those people who have already had their convictions overturned, the Post Office has decided that 700 of their own prosecutions came into this category. As for the non-Post Office convictions, it is still a bit confusing - eventually we will have an accurate figure for the number of people who have convictions overturned or are otherwise exonerated. Southdevonian (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian, are we saying we already know that none of those 700 cases had evidence besides Horizon and they are all confirmed as definite miscarriages? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what the BBC says in footnote 9: "More than 900 sub-postmasters and postmistresses were prosecuted for stealing money because of incorrect information provided by a computer system called Horizon." And this is what the government is saying: "The blanket exoneration will overturn hundreds of convictions, brought about thanks to erroneous Horizon evidence, clearing the names of many people who have had their lives ruined." [6] Southdevonian (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian, so it's opinion, ambiguous statements, or sensationalist reporting and not the findings of courts. I'm not sure we should say it in Wiki's voice then. See WP:VOICE. We need to be aware that although many of the convictions may be unsafe (and only the courts can decide if they were) some of the convictions may indeed be safe. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely clear now in first paragraph that only about 100 convictions have been overturned so far. As for the other 800 or so, we will wait and see. If the government is proposing a blanket exoneration they obviously think a fair number of them have been wrongfully convicted. Southdevonian (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better now. And sure, it seems that "a fair number" of them probably were, but it's not our job to declare that they all were, especially as there is reasonable doubt about that in the current sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Southdevonian (talk)Yes (93 I think but we are a long way from what the PM announced and that happening. Big constitutional issues in the press about the announcement opposition to it. By the way conflicting statements in press and on BBC about whether chairman was asked, walked or was sacked Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again re the pm statement. it is right to put it in but not there . It's not neutral. The 93 quashed out hundred but unknown number after many years is scandalous, the pm yet to be fulfilled and possibly unfulfillable statement is scandal softening, it is sophistry. There is no bill and so on. My point re the chair. What's it got to do with the enquiry? It comes from outcry, bonuses, hope to be elected. No not correct under the inquiry section than almost everything Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph says plans have been announced which I think makes it clear there is nothing definite yet. About the chairman - Badenoch is saying on TV today that it was her decision [7]. Southdevonian (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Southdevonian (talk)Re the above unsigned entry. I know. The man himself is reported differently, also by the BBC. It needs both accounts. About your last edit "paved the way etc. As I write this it was in the lede. It is journalese, but much more importantly it is misleading and in that sense wrong, moreso in the lede. The declared unreliability of Horizon was a part, but a minor part of what led, for a few, still only a few on a long rocky road. It was the fact that the Post Office and Fujitsu knew it was faulty, gave false evidence, and did not disclose, as by statutory rules require they must, to the defence lawyers in the prosecutions. They also tried to withhold from the court of appeal and nearly succeeded. The convictions were declared unlawful (malicious is different). This has been played down by many for obvious reasons but needs emphasising. The court does not overturn often cases together. I believe the largest combined 'quashing' ever is ten. This was 500+. It was unlawful for them to have been prosecuted, but still, their road to compensation remains unpaved.

The editing and restoration (collective) of the last 48 hours has, to me, been impressive. I hope that is taken in the spirit it is meant.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"The 2019 ruling paved the way for millions of pounds worth of future pay-outs and led to the Court of Appeal quashing the convictions of postmasters who were wrongly accused of committing crimes."

That quote is from a government source [8]. Southdevonian (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes indeed, that the problem. It drips with sophistry. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert of the edited lede

MapReader (talk). You misapply BRD. "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see.). (etc.) I'm very happy to discuss whatever deficits exist in my edit but to revert in this situation is not justified. I explained, perhaps too fully, my concerns about the contents of the lede before I made the edit. Those points need to be addressed. That should have been done either by editing my edit or brought up here. I respect the editing that has been done but the lede was concealing and misleading. The article covers the points I put into my edit. Its predecessor didn't, it left out the nub of the scandal. I have attempted to set out my concerns and those concerns should be answered here. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, if someone does something so bold as to completely rewrite the lead of a very active article, deleting large parts of it, and any editor isn’t happy with the changes, then the correct route is to revert and invite the editor to justify their changes - in whole or in parts, as you see fit - on the talk page. If there is consensus supporting the revised version, then it is later implemented; otherwise the status quo remains. MapReader (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader. I understand the point when you say "...to completely rewrite the lead" but I think you exaggerate a bit. It was a rewrite of the beginning, plus some deletions of stuff like who broke the story. Perhaps it is just a question of degree about which we can just agree to differ. I would be grateful if you could address the points I made in my last entry to you viz " ....but the lede was concealing and misleading. The article covers the points I put into my edit. Its predecessor didn't, it left out the nub of the scandal." As an example the lede I edited said nothing about the non disclosure by the post office of the Horizon faults during their prosecutions, about their aggressive non disclosure during the Bates case or the fact that they were required by law to make those disclosures. A reader would not get any knowledge that the postmaster's convictions were quashed because their prosecutions were unlawful or of the post office attempts to cover up. My lede attempted at least at giving an inkling. There is a whole load more that it did not say or allude to. If you can those points please do so. If not lets not get into a drawn out hyphen type discussion. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

If it was okay to have the PO logo in the article, then I do not see why it should not be in the infobox. Also a link to the Horizon inquiry is appropriate - it is the website about the scandal inquiry. So I am restoring the previous version of infobox. Southdevonian (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the infobox adds much in this case anyway. It's not the sort of article that's easily boiled down to statistics and pithy statements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an infobox is not appropriate for this. If it is used though, the PO logo is inappropriate for it and the website of the inquiry should not be used as if it was the official scandal website. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Support - the infobox provides a high-level overview of the scandal, and compliments the article. Considering the introduction of the article is very text heavy, I think creates an easy, general overview. I think include a different website however. Icaldonta (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Support - happy with the full works: box + logo + website link. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The Post Office logo is not a free image, it is used under fair use. I'm not sure how it qualifies to be in this article realistically in the first place, but it should not be given a prominent position that a reader could mistake for any kind of official connection, endorsement, etc. I also personally do not think that, given the nature of the case, the Post Office should be the public image of it on here (above, say, subpostmasters affected); PO is not the heart of the case and doesn't need prominence. But I digress: the PO logo should not be in the lead on procedural grounds. If the logo is acceptable in the article it is presumably to visually establish the Post Office as an organisation as what is being referred to, so readers don't question "which post office" or the like, and this should be done so at the first prose section that explains the parties involved in the scandal. It is not a headline image reflecting the case and should not be used as such. Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not quite sure I understand what you mean when you say that "PO is not the heart of the case", especially since the article is called the British Post Office scandal. If the PO logo shouldn't be used, then doesn't the same apply to the Fujitsu logo? I think the article could benefit from some pictures. I will try and find some. Southdevonian (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Some responses below have mostly got it right, but I'll explain my thinking. Scandals usually have two overarching parts: the incident and the response. Here the incident is the major miscarriage of justice. Obviously the response is both public and private. There are so many parts to both that it's hard to say just one entity involved (even a large one) should be the main focus. In addition, IMO, if there was a main focus it would be the people who suffered the miscarriage of justice (for the incident) and the main proponents in bringing attention (for the response) - if there had to be an image in the lead, I would (personally) therefore argue that it should be of Mr. Bates, who was central in both those groups. But overall, I do not think there is a central party and there probably shouldn't be a lead image unless one naturally arises that seems obvious to reflect the whole case (the photo of the post office is a fine choice if, again, there's a need for an image - images are always desirable but not just for the sake of it).

  About the Fujitsu logo. First, it is a free image, so it can be used theoretically without issue anywhere. There may be trademark issues if it is being used in a way that could mislead, for example. However (and second), where it was in the article was doing what I described as probably fair use for logos above: it was identify 'the correct' Fujitsu next to the earliest discussion of the company in the article. It's possible that both logos can be used in such a way if wikilinks to the companies are not deemed sufficient. Kingsif (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Did not realise that the PO logo was being used "under fair use". Did not see any red box outline. But I am also baffled by the claim that "PO is not the heart of the case". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having puzzled over it - maybe it means that the victims are more important than the PO? I would agree. Southdevonian (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  More important, certainly. But in terms of blame and crimimal culpability...?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I very much agree with Kingsif (talk) about PO is not the heart of the case. It is about cover up, poor government oversight, unethical and illegal practice. By people working for PO, Gov. courts, firms of solicitors, Fujutsu etc. And of course, as Southdevonian (talk) says, it is about 4000 victims. There is also stuff in papers today that thing started earlier than Horizon. Although it hardly bears thinking t might be necessary to think about the name of the article. Also see this in Guardian scandal or crisis [9] Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Then we'll have to disagree on that one, although I would not object to "British Post Office Horizon scandal" as a rename. Sorry to digress. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  No disagreement about change of name, it would be foolish. and I wasn't suggesting it. But I do think there needs to be a better understanding of what is at the heart of the scandal. The article I referred to is really about the danger? likelihood? of it fading away with little consequence. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  The "heart of the scandal" is probably not a single entity, it's a combination of inter-related entities - PO, Fujitsu, solicitors, government, sub-postmasters, etc. - they were all essential factors. That said, I see no overwhelming reason why the PO brand should not be firmly stamped on the whole affair. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have no disagreement with that. Everybody refers to it a the Post Office scandal. The question is really about weight and emphasis iin the article. Having had Horizon judged unreliable, not too much now needs to be said about Horizon. Who knew it was dicky, and when, and what they did etc. Who, involved in the prosecutions knew but covered up. Who fought to keep it covered up.. Most of that is in the article but, a bit like Eric Morecambe's notes, not necessarily in the right order. Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I see no overwhelming reason why the PO brand should not be firmly stamped on the whole affair – Besides the fact the logo can only be used to identify the company, not anything else, the POV here is a perfect reason it should not be used. It sounds like (and this is relevant even if you did not intend) you think that because the PO have done wrong, their logo deserves to be associated, like some kind of public shaming. If readers were to see that, then Wikipedia could be (pardon the French) in a load of shit. Kingsif (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  We could probably learn a lot from the Frogs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean the article about La Poste is a good article? But isn't the word you use a derogatory term for French people? Southdevonian (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I meant at the corporate level, alas. But before you suggest I strike, I need to apologise to any French editors here. Merde. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with having no infobox. A good lead is more useful. If we have an infobox, I'm not convinced that we should pick out one logo in particular. More pictures in the article would be a good thing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOSLOGO strongly argues against using a logo. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Horizon Inquiry has a logo. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No need for a current events template

The template is inappropriate for this article. WP:CET explains when a current events template may be needed. Whether or not the article needs more commentary is another question. In general, Wikipedia articles should be about facts, not commentary. In particular, this article is far too long as it is, without additional commentary. Southdevonian (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does. Please see my concerns about voice, balance etc In my entries throughout this talk page. removing the template twice before any response on the talk page is not polite. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Roll Fujitsu whistleblower

I am amazed to see no reference to the whistleblower. Others will be better placed than me to know where to add him; there are plenty of good refs e.g. "Who was Post Office whistleblower Richard Roll? Brave IT engineer who exposed awful truth", "Richard Roll's life and how Post Office scandal whistleblower became a hero" , https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/03/horizon-trial-day-4-day-of-two-halves.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sccwxcaYYo Amble123 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

And here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk) These are most important and show this to be an ongoing scandal . The notion that the scandal is finished and the page just needs tidying is wrong. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Cost of Horizon

Hansard here (Kevan Jones) says "It cost over £1 billion to install..." So how much is that? "£1 billion and 23p", "£1.9 billion", or how much? Is this the best estimate we are going to get? And will this be clarified by the enquiry? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123 the ref you give is March 2020 and the discussion was in the article then, as I am sure you know. The whole subject is an ongoing aspect of the scandal. If I remember at that time the government was keen to say this is all down to the PO and they as a business will have to deal with any compensation. Of course we know know that the government later acknowledged that they were paying (Rozenberg has recently given an account of just how). It remains covered in the article up to about early 2022. A little very recent stuff but light on figures over time and future costs and the gap uncovered. I do think the cost to the public purse, the bonuses fiasco, is an important part of the ongoing scandal. But I am sure some other will see it all as too confusing, say it is irrelevant or .... Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

As it was for a publicly-owned body, the cost of the Horizon system, ultimately bourn by the tax-payer, should be 100% clear. The cost of any contemporaneous staff bonuses or any later compensation payments are probably irrelevant. What readers want to know is - who much were Fujitsu (and possibly other companies who were tasked with making it work) paid? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. The PO chair made a public plea for Government assistance at the time that the Gov was adopting the stance that the PO was an 'arms length company' that had to deal with the issue, the implication being it must pay. But it was becoming clear that the size would bankrupt the so called company. There are course ways of putting this, more politely perhaps smoke screen, Gilding the Lilly, BS. But the danger of bankruptcy blew all that away. But so much more is now known and reported in RSs. Throughout, the matter of governance, both by the board and by the Dept for Business continues to be a main component of the scandal. The press has been covering it. Institute of Government (independent) has done some good stuff. I think you probably know all this but others may not. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Structural issues and general format unsuitability

To combine the majority of the discussions at this talkpage, there are clear issues with how this article presents the information. A large part of the problems stem from the fact that the "British Post Office scandal" has quite a large scope. The article covers: the issues with the Post Office/Horizon system; the legal cases convicting sub-postmasters and other punishments they faced; the resulting legal fight by the sub-postmasters; the Post Office cover-up; the public scandal when the various aforementioned information became news. The article does not particularly well cover the actual scandal, aftermath of legal cases, and the human impact, but one would imagine they are in scope. That's a lot of different things, each of which are typically handled slightly differently in how the articles on them are written.

One solution would be to split the article. It goes into particular depth on legal cases, which are in increasingly-confusingly-layered subsections and written as overall articles of legal cases seem to be. Those could be split and given summaries here, in prose more conventional to event articles - which would also reduce the length.

I have some experience contributing to articles that deal with a mix of related events, legal cases, scandals (e.g. David Whiting, Rubiales affair), so I know it's possible to get it all into one in a more readable fashion than this article currently stands as.

In hoping not to need a split discussion or RfC, I have some ideas on improvements, for your discussion: Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Split out Court cases

Besides being in their own hard-to-parse format, these subsections present a mix of Post Office going after sub-postmasters in court, and vice versa, kind of mixed in together. This makes understanding the situation more difficult. Splits could be to one article for the Post Office going after people (Court cases brought by the British Post Office against sub-postmasters - titles do not have to be short) or in various articles for each case that passes relevant notability criteria. The cases by Bates and others brought against the Post Office should be handled separately: I think Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd is more than suitable for its own article, while the others may be best put together in an article about Hamilton & Others and Post Office Ltd featuring the 2019 civil appeals as Background. I note that Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3) already exists, but does not seem to be in-line mentioned anywhere in this article. That's, really, so bad. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For a start I have removed the lists of cases cited, which were not necessary. If anyone wants to know what cases were cited they can look at the judgments. If anyone wants to create a "List of cases cited in Post Office court cases" article they can do so. Southdevonian (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite the lead

The lead/lede starts of decently - though reducing everything to just the miscarriage of justice is non-indicative of the scope - but then gives a prose timeline (leads should prioritise relevance, not chronology) that also manages to highlight some of the most irrelevant details of the whole scenario. Why is the DSS one of the first things mentioned when it is barely a footnote in the background of the system that provoked the main issue, for the first example. We should better label the scope in the opening paragraph. And we should discuss to identify the most important and relevant parts of the whole thing to summarise in the lead. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-work the Horizon IT system section

Another confusing layer of sub-sections is that the mediation scheme, while provoked by the system causing the Post Office to act badly, is not part of the Horizon system. Why is it under here? The Second Sight reports are also more about how the Post Office was effectively ignoring the problems, at least how the subsection makes it sound, not about the system itself. Should that be under here? But the main issue is that this section is written like its own article. It has an intro to what the system is and its development (not directly relevant), then various long summaries of the issues and reports, before we even get to the first subsection. Perhaps it would be simplest to split this whole section out to a Horizon (IT system) article, but then there are those questions of what belongs as subsections. Decisions about what information belongs where is needed, to resolve the excessive detail that in parts looks like a promotion for the system, as well as the attempts at presenting a chronology that is weak due to repetition and lack "cause and effect". Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth adding discussion of how Horizon caused the accounting issues? I'm looking for a source that meets appropriate thresholds. That might belong here, at least in brief.

I'd suggest that Horizon (as a blanket label for Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online, HNG-X and HNG-A) merits a page on its own. The Judgment in Alan Bates and Others and Post Office Limited ([2019] EWHC 3408 (QB)) is an intimidating document, but Appendix 2 lists 29 separate bugs that had different impacts on the reliability of the system. The processes by which Horizon failed are discussed in a few blogs but as yet I've not found anything that spells out what was intended and what actually happened on the ground. The Therac-25 is a reasonable prototype for explaining software faults and a few lines here and a Horizon (IT system) page there could cover the rest. I would argue that having one's own judicial inquiry [10]https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ probably meets the notability threshold. C37H67NO13 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The information would probably belong in detail at a standalone and in brief at this article, where its presence aids understanding of the topic. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Rework the timeline

The timeline should ideally be a chronological series of events, but the various paragraphs tend to focus on topics. While paragraphs here usually start with a date, they give information that spans different periods. It may be better to remove stuff which doesn't serve the narrative, e.g. information on the corporate history of ICL / Fujitsu, or the structure of Royal Mail. Chumpih ^t 06:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at the timeline and maybe the context deserves a little mention. The system was implemented in 1999, still early time for the Blair government. Soon came 911 (in 2001) with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to follow quickly. Everybody was distracted. Nobody had time for the complaints by post office subcontractors who could jeopardize the benefits of semi-privatisation. Worse still, the affected subcontractors could not prove anything, because when computers cough up results - that's it - no discussion is possible because the data are only accessible to experts.

It should be allowed to take notice of where trouble lies with these computer systems so problems like this Post Office/Horizon scandal can be nipped in the bud early, not years down the track with so many victims. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:54FD:CA4C:D6E:E4D4 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this is very perceptive; current press reports of a) the scandal beginning before Hosizon, b) the aiding and abetting role of Fujitsu, and c) the government's pre 'Bates case' knowledge of the computer faults. Having studied this scandal closely from before Wikipedia itself was created I had hoped, after the ITV television production, that other editors would shape the page to cover the scandal as we currently know it. 'Timeline' has been discussed in two separate sections, Rework the timeline and Timeline. It has been mentioned 30+ times across the Talk page, most difficult to follow, particularly if a mobile device is used, in discussions that appear to have caused one or some to conclude that it should be removed. There a now only link to a Post Office publication on that name. A bit droll? Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

discussions that appear to have caused one or some to conclude that it should be removed - no, people think it should be removed because timelines are not considered stylistically helpful in most cases, as a general rule on English Wikipedia. It was most likely edited by people with less experience editing within the area who thought it would be helpful. Maybe, when the article has been properly shaped, some kind of outline will be thought to have use. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk)Thank you. I appreciate your comment very much. I particularly wanted to respond to the comment from 2001:8003:A070:7F00:54FD:CA4C:D6E:E4D4 for 2 reasons. The first because, as I said, it was perceptive. The second reason was because they seemed not to have realised that it had been taken out and I thought it helpful to show that the way the discussion had occurred unconnectedly was difficult to follow. On reading that editor's comment again I think that perhaps they weren't talking about the Timeline (as a headed section) as you are (?) and I was. I now think it referred to the development, the progress of the events, the scandal over time. I am not particularly concerned about the removal of the Timeline but I am very concerned about the simple removal of material and references with little apparent understanding their place in the chain of events. In essence my view is that there needed and still needs to be good skilled precise as a prelude to thoughtful removal. I don't believe that is happening. With respect, I know this to be a scandal that began 20+ years ago, became known very slowly because of continued managerial coverup and that it is, forgive the laboured point, continuing suffer from unethical and possibly unlawful coverup. That editor's 3 Feb comment was insightful and prescient. Jacksoncowes (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, when I saw the IP comment, I thought very little of it and that's why I didn't address it. It verges, if not outright crosses into, WP:FORUM. They haven't really mentioned anything that needs editing or improving, just wrote a collection of thoughts on their view of context. Unless they want to suggest "add context of what society was like X years ago" and provide some sources where, as an example, the government outright says "we were distracted from looking into it because Blair was new and 9/11" (and I personally think the comment is the opposite of insightful, taking an amateur historian view that looks at one big obvious thing without considering that not every government department is focused on war and there are civil servants who exist just to check every bit of paper, etc). Historians can make qualified judgments of what factors affect events, but if we put such speculation into a Wikipedia article it's going to be called out for OR. Introducing background context without crossing that line is delicate and difficult. This is why background sections, where they exist, and not context dumps. I wrote much of the Hamraoui case article and while the background could go into race relations in Paris and the history of PSG and everything, it has much more immediate context and is simple factual statements without suggesting analysis.

Perhaps worse still with the IP comment above, having just re-read it, is that it almost sounds like the IP is advocating a view of "because of [context], you can't blame anything but the computers for the scandal" and it would be massively inappropriate to be adding context to imply such a thing. And dismissing the subpostmasters' complaints as something not worth bothering with, and that were dangerous to the semi-privatisation? Well. Kingsif (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your reply led me to Hamraoui case and to Scandal and a few other pages, so thank you. Scandal is well defined "as the strong social reactions of outrage, anger, or surprise, when accusations or rumours circulate or appear for some reason, regarding a person or persons who are perceived to have transgressed in some way a social norm." The social and political background of this scandal involves some of the most powerful people and institutions in this country. To leave out what you imply should be left out doesn't cut the mustard. You referr me to an article covering a small number of people over a short period of two or three years. Could it be that it is rated Start-class because it lacks what you think it shouldn't have in it. I had intended to reply saying that I did know what you meant by the the IP comment above. However, I do now and have read your reply. That potential tyro editor is obviously fully aware of the scandal in real terms. The etiquette of 'do not bite' should have been exercised. Above you quoted me in green saying '...have caused one or some to conclude that it should be removed.' and you replied, no, people think .... Some people? All the people? X number of people? Do you really believe you speak for all? In an earlier entry you threatened to read up on this scandal before taking your angle grinder to the article. I am well able to take flippant comments lightly but I really do urge you to be serious in your threat to read up on the issue and to lighten up on good faith comments from knowledgeable non regular editors. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I referred you to an article I have first-hand experience with to give you an idea of how, when background sections exist, the items are related to the topic, i.e. it's not throwing all of history in. I'm sure you could find that in other articles, be it scandals or wars or whatever, but that is one I know. I wasn't trying to say it was comparable, and your jump to assuming that the article is bad (and apparently trying to find justification for that in a rating that was given when it was first created), rather than taking from it the kind of context depth, is strange to me.
I do know what a scandal is and have explicitly advocated multiple times at this talkpage for making the article more focused on that than varying droll law speak. Such information, in case you're somehow thinking my comment about appropriate background means I don't want the scandal covered even though that hasn't been mentioned in this thread at all, would not belong in a background section or a timeline section. I don't know what you think my comment was about with the attitude you've taken, and I suggest re-reading it with good faith, because that's how I wrote it.
Yes, I think the IP editor is trying to have a chat about their view of the subject, rather than discussing what editing needs to be done with the article. That's not bitey. If anyone is biting, it's your comment right here.
And yeah, I am shocked at how your attitude has turned to somewhat combative, by the way. Re. the previous comment, you had said you believed it was difficult-to-follow discussions at this talkpage that caused people to think a timeline section should be deleted; I corrected you based on having read the arguments given by the people at this talkpage for why they thought a timeline section should be deleted. I do not speak for everyone, but I can read what they say and tell you. And in response to you seeming to speak for others, BTW.
In an earlier entry you threatened to read up on this scandal - and what is that supposed to mean. Threats? Flippant? I am going to assume that you're just being hyperbolic, which is probably inadvisable with your previous interrogatory tone, but sure. I have been looking into it more. I also have other things going on. I know enough about the topic to know I don't know enough to comprehensively edit the article, so that's where we're at.
Your last suggestion seems, well, again, go back and read my comment with good faith. I wasn't being heavy. This comment here, too, is made in good faith even though you've been uncivil. So yeah, in the nicest way, back at you. I urge you to lighten up on good faith comments from me.
Look, I replied because I got a notification - I don't know if you or the IP hit the reply button after my comment or what - and I felt the need to correct your assumption that it was the manner of talkpage discussion that had made people want to delete an inappropriate section. Of course, my multi-sectioned ...section here was intended to centralise discussion and it clearly hasn't worked, so I do sympathise with your struggles to navigate. That I didn't think it worth replying to the IP, and you take issue with that? Well, this is definitely off-topic now, so feel welcome to continue this at my talkpage instead. Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please allow me a few remarks en passant. 1. The article you referred me to. I don't assume it is bad and I have no desire to or intention of accessing its goodness or badness or in any way other than to say it is a poor exemplar of what should be left in or taken out of this article; it did the opposite of supporting your earlier reply to me (IMO). 2. You misquote me by truncation, chopping off the angle grinder. You had said 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. So yes threat. Flippant was more litotes than hyperbole, an attempt to downplay its inappropriateness of the angle grinder part but to leave the read up part.. 3. Let me now say you would be right to criticise me for elevating the status of the 'IP editor'; I should have said pupa rather than potential tyro. That bombast is just to lead to me saying respectfully to you, yes, I did bite, but you are very obviously not a tyro. I reacted to what I regarded as a breach of etiquette and I feel not need to say more.

I have found your edits to this page thoughtful, interesting and valuable. I had avoided what I knew to be contentious in my reply to the IP editor. I said caused one or some ..... You corrected me saying, to my mind imperiously, no, people think ..... implying that consensus had been reached but giving no form of number, amount or stated rational. I don't think it had. Don't let us now put each other to proof, my only point was that it needed to be asserted more properly. All of this brings me to what I really want to propound. It is a meant as reply to you as part of the interested commentary you have been conducting here generally. As the public interest in the scandal diminished, after the initial inquiry started, so did the RSs. It became difficult to find an appropriate place on the page to locate what was reported and needed to be in. Important stuff got 'parked'. The page increasingly needed reshaping;, pieces summarised and appropriately positioned under existing and new headings. That is so different to reduction. I would not dream of patronising you by presuming you don't know that. But I do say that simple reduction without sufficient knowledge and comprehension is what has been happening. Further, and at least as important is getting the important current stuff in. In spite of the increasing amount of RS material since November, and the current torrent, very little has been edited in but lots thrown out without due care. You are wise to say, I know enough about the topic to know I don't know enough to comprehensively edit the article... , that's true of most of us. The culture that has developed here is not conducive to good collaborative editing.. The apparent dominant ethos (IMO), encouraged by overblown disparagement, is that the scandal is over, the page needs shortening, and then there will be room to put in what the Inquiry finds when it finishes. The only ethos? No. All the editors and edits? No. But there has been ignoring, swatting away views, over rapid and too many reversions. On my current computer, the article history page of about 50 edits, there are about 20 reversions. I have done and will again congratulate good editing, encourage those here to stay and other to return or to come in. Currently, contributing to editing is not for the faint hearted. The article is in no more nor less of a mess than it was at 3 January, it is just in a different mess.. The scandal is in full flood, is intensifying, is full of intrigue and cover-up by powerful forces working hard to protect themselves. I know well it is not Wiki's role to investigate, to side, etc, etc and many more etceteras. It is far from over. The inquiry is due to end in November(?) to report - who knows. There is a general election in the offing. The IP was right to be concerned about brooms and carpets. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

First, based on revisiting the Hamraoui case article myself (and seeing that the case has developed further based on additions to Marie-Antoinette Katoto), I have decided to work on improving that article. So, thanks for prompting that. Second, while I see where you're coming from with the word "threat", I think it's an extreme interpretation and unwarranted. The intended purpose of an angle grinder is to polish the edges, remember - but even if I had said "hacksaw", I would hope any editor reading in good faith would just understand it as a colourful way of saying "I might make some big WP:Bold edits". Of course, in the past I often used figurative language in talk page discussions and there's quite a number of editors who don't get it, apparently confusing people, which I don't want to do and is why I've tried to write more directly (unfortunately leading to being interpreted as blunt, sigh). Last, thank you for your further reflections on the state of the article. I don't disagree. Of course, I won't be touching until I feel certain I'm not going to be adding to the mess. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I get it. I really do prefer edits to disregard, mess is easily mopped. Jacksoncowes (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It also ends in 2021. Should it also be retitled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

An alternative would be to rewrite the intro, incorporating some of the timeline text. I think a long and complex article like this can support a longer intro. Also there are now some good sources that give an overview of the subject, rather than using so many different sources in the intro. I actually prefer intros without refs (everything referenced in the text) but the manual of style says either way is fine - intros with or without refs. Southdevonian (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Remembering of course, that, per WP:LEAD, the lead (intro) should only summarise the most important points already made in the article body, and as it should not contain anything that needs sourcing, should not generally need sources in it. I think they should be avoided as they add unnecessary clutter. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't mention anything to do with that section because I figured we'd just delete it when we knew all relevant information was in the article. As an overview that was renamed to timeline, it doesn't belong at all. Just need to make sure the lead is good. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. There are a few well-cited points in this section that don't appear elsewhere in the article - the citations themselves could be considered valuable. But unless we have a chronology befitting the title Timeline, this section is just a mess that should go. Chumpih ^t 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Consolidate article focus

As has been mentioned in other discussions, this article has a lot of intricate information about computers and court cases, but none of that conveys why it became a scandal. If the main point of this article is a scandal as the name suggests, why is any information about that shuffled into Reactions and Aftermath sections, rather than being the main focus. The inquiries and investigations into the Post Office aren't merely reactions. I don't know when the article was created, but it seems that it likely began life as an article on the Post Office taking sub-postmasters to court and everything that has come out since has been poorly tacked-on. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The scandal lies in the various cover ups and that the people would not be believed. Plus, the people were put into a very bad situation, ruining lives in many instances. People were treated with contempt and the scandal is that it was done over a long period of time with no understanding that there was wrongdoing.

The article reflects a complex matter, and so it is complex. If someone can think of splitting the article in more digestible shorter articles, maybe thst could be a way. Or you could say, you list the events, issues, and legal matters separately from the victims. Have a separate page for 'people harmed by the Post Office Matters'? One of the aspects now is of course to ensure the wrongdoing is not swept under the carpet - because we need to learn. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C4B4:E90A:A798:FC82 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Being complex does not necessitate an article being unfocused and rambling. The complexity is indeed why focus and coherence must be prioritised. Two other things: add new comments at the bottom of a discussion rather than splitting up other replies; and do not add comments just to chat about the topic. Further disruptive replies will be removed. Kingsif (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The article was started in draft in March 2015 and published, pretty, much unchanged, in July 2016 (looking like this), when the short lede was mostly comprised of:

Horizon is the name for a computer system used by part of the United Kingdom's postal service, Post Office Ltd. It has come under criticism since at least 2013 for errors in the system which, according to press reports, may have caused the loss of dozens of jobs, unnecessary prison sentences, bankruptcies and one documented suicide.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The article was originally called Horizon (IT system) and only switched to Post Office scandal in June 2021. Southdevonian (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the scandal should have been a new article rather than Frankenstein-ing this together. At least we know why it is such a mess. Realistically we have two options: discussion about good content for inclusion and how it should be written, or a few users BOLDly making many large changes and hoping it turns out better. There isn't a time limit on improving articles, but with the massive uptick in pageviews it would be nice to get this in shape. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Add more encyclopedic information about the human impact and similar

We are an encyclopedia, and some people seem to think that means we must be cold and only present the boring "X happened then Y happened". Encyclopedias have always had a duty to convey how events were experienced - how people during and after reacted to what happened, not just what happened. That's another issue with the Reactions section... it's just other stuff that happened. Besides this, there is a serious lack of information about what happened... to the sub-postmasters despite that being half the reason there's a scandal (Post Office doing such a thing to them being the other half) - we obviously cannot cover everyone, and per a discussion above it looks like there used to be lengthy sections on certain individual sub-postmasters, which is also not appropriate. An overview, though, seems necessary. And it's probably what a lot of readers are looking for, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We could achieve that by restoring the Individual cases section that was in the article for 7+ years, but removed last month. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Time to drop that stick, perhaps? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

To sum it up, we could probably say that an encyclopedia is about facts, unadulterated, unbiased, and complete. But what is the good of facts if there is no learning experience? Some selected stories of individual cases facilitate the learning experience from this extraordinary scandal on steroids. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:446C:7C5A:AEEB:32F9 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating a cohesive voice

It also seems evident that this article was written by a mix of editors from the legal cases sphere, and what I would say were relatively inexperienced editors - writing things in short chronology paragraphs and shoving every new development into Reactions, unsure of a format to suit the article. This also means that the style of writing shifts considerably from section to section, which makes it more of a slog if a reader is going through the whole thing top to bottom. I think this issue still warrants discussion but has a simpler solution: we could ask WP:GOCE to run through it as a priority. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to put a bit of structure in the Horizon section and alter some of the headings, but then realised that there was now a mediation and compensation section and then another compensation section so it probably didn't help much.

I agree that, because of the history of the article, the Horizon section is too prominent and the inquiry etc should not be added on as a reaction but be given more weight. What is the actual scandal? The prosecution of innocent people because the Post Office wouldn't admit that they had a software problem? Plus the time it has taken to try and put it right?

How about looking at it in a different way? Say you had a blank screen - how would you organise the article?

I think I would go for a roughly chronological approach:

Background section covering the rolling out of Horizon and maybe the Second Sight Reports

Prosecutions

JFSA and civil action

Appeals

Inquiry

Media coverage Southdevonian (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested restructure

@Wire723 I have been struggling to find a way to succinctly find a way of setting out ptoposals. I will add here where I cot so far and then do another entry.

Post Office How it got to where it was by start of scandal. Recent press now indicate mid 1990s

→Business structure and management Chairs, CEOs etc.

→Post Office computer programmes cost, Fujitsu, perhaps testing &implimentention?

→→Capture Reportage, problems with software, what was known by whom and when. what was in the open, what wasn't

→→Horizon. Installation and roll-out (summarised), Second Sight reports (summarised). Reportage, problems with software, what was known by whom and when. what was in the open, what wasn't

→Investigation of subpostmasters and prosecution of subpostmasters by Post Office Reportage of how they went about it,

→→Sample cases Castleton. Possibly the stuff that was in, perhaps anonymised. Reportage

→Investigation of Post Office & Fujitsu findings of Case of Bates and others, Hamilton. and others. Police investigations Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wire723Post Office is a section. Underlined are sub-headings, the number of → indicate level and the italic stuff is to indicate text beneath the headings. I do not mean to say that the text of the heading etc. should be just as I have written above. The inclusion of important material has since October 2023, including since January has bee very difficult. Extremely difficult to find appropiate place. I am sure a more skilled wiki technician that me could set out what I have crudely tried to do. I quite understand why raised the level of the heading I had lowered. Perhaps you will see I propose using heading levels not to indicate importance but to marshal material into related aspects of this 25 year scandal that is principally about Post Office malifercence. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jacksoncowes - not sure which heading level change you have in mind. None altered by me today. Wire723 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wire723 Sorry. I will try to see properly what has happened and work out what I thought had happened. I would still value you views of my structure proposals. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

To try to explain with an example. The Horizon Inquiry has recently published the list of 68 witnesses for the next hearing. There has been a great deal of important informing RS commentary both about the people and about the fact that they have been called. In is current structure where does this material go. Its as plain as a pike staff their parts in the scandal (good, dodgy on informative) but where to put the important stuff in the article with iits current structure. Sample from the 68: -Altman, Arbuthnot, Bates, Crozier, De Garr Robinson, Grabiner, Hooper, Clarke, Cable, Crozier etc Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Re structure: there's no "right" answer – the goal is to be logical and have a readable article. The hard part is preventing it growing to book length. You are right that the description of Horizon should be a summary, and the same goes for PO management (with more detail in the PO article). Re the future witnesses: best to wait and see what they have to say. Wire723 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)