Talk:British Post Office scandal

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)

MoS:num

Just a reminder that the MoS is that numbers smaller than ten are generally spelled out in words, which would direct towards the correct format for this article being usage such as “Phase Two” and “week one”, rather than the many numerals that seem to have been edited into both headings and the article text. MapReader (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Except that in this case, the numerical format is taken directly from, and is consistent with, source. -- Jmc (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We currently have inconsistency in the numbering of Phases (e.g. "The Phase 1 hearings" and "Phases five and six"). This needs to be resolved. It seems that the convention for such series numbering (not directly addressed by the MOS) is that it should follow the relevant source. -- Jmc (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

For the body of the text we should clearly follow Mos:num. For tables and info-boxes, numbered format would be permissible; there’s a decision to be made about headings and subheadings, which could be in either format. MapReader (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is silent on the issue of numerals in a series. See the MOS talk discussion on the question. -- Jmc (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The MoS applies widely and generally, unless there is community (not project) consensus around an exception. That discussion is fresh and ongoing and I don't see any consensus as yet. MapReader (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone contradicting the understanding that the accepted practice is that we should follow the sources. That's what was done with the account of Phases 1 to 4 and, for internal consistency. that's what we should also do with Phases 5 to 7. -- Jmc (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is it stated that article format follows that of any source, other than within quotation marks? MapReader (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That was my reason for raising the issue. NebY seems to be drawing on generally accepted editorial practice in saying "I see the phases have been titled Phase 1, Phase 2 etc by the inquiry so unless the inquiry's inconsistent, we can follow that source." (To be clear, we're only talking about numeric format in a specific and limited case, not article format in general.) -- Jmc (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

On that basis, I'll go ahead and bring the instances in the 'Phases 5 to 7' section into line with those in the 'Phases 1 to 4' section. -- Jmc (talk) 18:14, 27 October 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) 17:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)