Talk:British Post Office scandal

Angela van den Bogerd

I'm thinking of spinning out a separate article on Angela van den Bogerd, based on the volume of RS coverage of her, specifically. Any objhections? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume it'd be a standard BLP article, not solely limited to her role in the BPO scandal? -- Jmc (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Origin of computer glitch?

Hi, evidence has emerged that at least some but not all of the discrepancies may be due to a defect in the actual processors used. I accidentally discovered this a few years back with the early AMD chips (4800 and 5600) that some games didn't run properly until patched because the cores got out of sync resulting in data corruption. This might have worsened with load as typically higher clocks generated more issues and the effect also varied depending on motherboard type and RAM manufacturer. The Intel chips at the time didn't suffer as badly from this but SPECTRE and Meltdown became an issue later. Is it worth Intel and AMD testifying at the Horizon inquiry given that Intel already knew of a much earlier errata in the Pentium (FDIV) that was later patched in the silicon revision. The issue of an actual hardware defect or defects being a factor has come up before but as the hardware is so old now maybe something got overlooked? 91.190.161.160 (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources discussing this? Can you share them here?Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is any possible technical explanation, one might expect it to come to light in the official enquiry. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

91.190.161.160, a discussion on computerforum.com is not what we would consider a reliable source. See WP:RS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You might want to raise this in other forums if you feel concerned, but until this comes up in WP:RS, this isn't a matter for Wikipedia. — The Anome (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Controversial

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter: has added a controversy tag ("The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute"). Just wondered why? The subject itself is not controversial - in the sense that no-one is arguing that the Post Office is blameless. I have looked back over the past month's edits (over 100) and there doesn't seem to be any content dispute, etc. Southdevonian (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I have now removed it. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality/Editorial issues

Hi, everyone. I noticed that in the section 'Call for reform on digital evidence', paragraph 2 and part of paragraph 3 read like a persuasive essay rather than an encyclopedia. Does anyone else notice this and, if so, how can we fix this? QwertyForest (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested in this discussion in the future, this is a discussion relevant to this version of the article. QwertyForest (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph 2, at least, is tendentious and minimally relevant. It could well be excised without loss to the article. -- Jmc (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

The British Post Office scandal, also called the Horizon IT scandal, involved the Post Office pursuing thousands of innocent subpostmasters for apparent financial shortfalls caused by faults in Horizon, an accounting software system developed by Fujitsu.

I was reverted today for removing the word 'apparent' from the first sentence, reverted because, supposedly, the shortfalls were not real, hence apparent. After re-reading the sentence, I still think it needs to be changed. The shortfalls were real, not apparant: they were real when using the horizon data. The wording should be re-arranged to make it clearer that the problem wasn't an incorrect balance sheet but the computer that created the incorrect balance sheet. There would then be no need for the word 'apparent' anywhere. Faults with the software were real, as was the failure to disclose by the Post Office. That was the cause of this scandal. Reading the sentence yet again, I still think it reads correctly just by removing the word 'apparent' - the shortfalls when using Horizon were real, not apparent. What do others think? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your logic. But I think the sentence needs to be reworded generally — it's rather long and clumsy. Popcornfud (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To my mind, the phrase "financial shortfalls" means, at its simplest, that money was missing. But, in this case, money was not missing, but only apparently so, because of faults in Horizon. Therefore 'apparent' should stand. -- Jmc (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest solution is to re-write the sentence and maybe split it into two to avoid any ambiguity. It is on the long side anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking to see how other people introduce the scandal, and this seems as good as any [1] - they use the term "false shortfalls". Southdevonian (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "false shortfalls" is preferable to "apparent financial shortfalls". -- Jmc (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In 1996 the Post Office piloted new Horizon software in some of its branches. This software was introduced across the network of branches in 2000.The software had faults which meant that some subpostmasters’ accounts showed false shortfalls. The Post Office obliged subpostmasters to “repay” these false shortfalls and many were wrongfully convicted of offences such as theft, fraud, false accounting.

Above is a copy of the statement you refer to, from a UK govt link. I think just changing 'apparant' to 'false' doesn't solve the problem. The subbies were prosecuted for shortfalls, not false shortfalls. The second source doesn't say they were either - it says their accounts "showed false shortfalls", and stops there. Prosecutions then followed, which is a separate issue. The way the first sentence is written is IMO a form of wp:synthesis, making one statement of fact from two not directly connected statements. The solution would be to re-write the sentence, along the lines of the govt source above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What about "alleged shortfalls"? The prosecutions alleged there were shortfalls, using Horizon records as evidence. -- Jmc (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Alleged gets round the problem of too many falses - "false accounting" "false shortfalls". On the other hand it suggests a legal wariness which isn't necessary now that the convictions have been overturned. My suggestion for a revised opening:

"The British Post Office scandal, also called the Horizon IT scandal, saw hundreds of subpostmasters wrongfully convicted of theft and false accounting after faults in the Post Office Horizon accounting software caused shortfalls in their accounts. Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out privately by the Post Office. In addition, nearly 3700 subpostmasters were forced to cover shortfalls caused by Horizon with their own money and/or had their contracts terminated. Court cases, criminal convictions, imprisonments, loss of livelihoods and homes, debts, and bankruptcies devastated lives and led to illness, family breakdowns and at least four suicides. In 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the scandal as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history.

Although many subpostmasters had reported problems with the new software, which was developed and maintained by Fujitsu, the Post Office insisted that Horizon was “robust” and failed to disclose knowledge of known bugs in the system during criminal and civil cases."

I would also suggest removing the Sunak quote from the intro. Southdevonian (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)