Most active commenters
  • arrowsmith(6)

←back to thread

628 points xbryanx | 19 comments | | HN request time: 0.79s | source | bottom
Show context
akudha ◴[] No.44532288[source]
This was depressing to read. Failures at so many levels.

1. Immediately after Horizon was rolled out, issues were reported. But ignored

2. Prosecutors didn't bother to verify if there is another explanation before accusing thousands of people of stealing? Isn't it common sense to pause for a second and think, "could we please double check the evidence? how can thousands of postal workers suddenly turn into thieves?"

3. local newspaper had published a photo of her and labeled her the “pregnant thief.” - of course, UK tabloids. Click baits and write whatever the fuck they want, no matter whose lives are destroyed

4. post office has said that it does not have the means to provide redress for that many people - so they have the means to falsely prosecute and destroy the lives of thousands of people, but they don't have the means to correct their blunders?

This happened more than a decade ago. Citizens are expected to do everything on time (pay taxes, renew drivers license...) or get fined/jailed, but the government can sit on their butt for 10 YEARS and do nothing about a blunder they caused?

What about Fujitsu? Why can't the government make Fujitsu pay for the destruction caused by their shitty software?

Jeez. This is just fucking nuts

replies(8): >>44532458 #>>44532620 #>>44532731 #>>44532787 #>>44533037 #>>44533826 #>>44535067 #>>44537287 #
PaulRobinson ◴[] No.44532458[source]
I suggest you keep an eye on what's being published in Private Eye and Computer Weekly if you have access to those where you are. They're holding feet to the fire on all these points.

One thing I would say is that if somebody is convicted in the UK, it's acceptable legally and culturally to call them by the crime they committed.

The problem is that in this case the Post Office had unique legal powers, and was being run by people who did not want to "harm the brand" by admitting they had made mistakes, so kept digging.

There is also a fundamental flaw in how the courts - and the Post Office prosecutors - were instructed to think about the evidence in common law.

Bizarrely, it was not (and may still not), be an acceptable defense to say that computer records are wrong. They are assumed correct in UK courts. IT systems were legally considered infallible, and if your evidence contradicts an IT systems evidence, you were considered a liar by the court, and a jury might be instructed accordingly.

Yes, that's awful. Yes, it's ruined lives.

But also, I think all involved have realised pointing fingers at one or two individuals to blame hasn't really helped fix things. Like an air accident, you have to have several things go wrong and compound errors to get into this amount of trouble, normally. There were systemic failing across procurement, implementation, governance, investigations, prosecutions, within the justice system and beyond.

I already know people who have worked for Fujitsu in the UK are not exactly shouting about it. And yet, they're still getting awarded contracts before the compensation has been paid out...

replies(5): >>44532566 #>>44532914 #>>44533016 #>>44533058 #>>44537937 #
1. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44533016[source]
> if somebody is convicted in the UK, it's acceptable legally and culturally to call them by the crime they committed.

Is this not the case in other countries?

replies(1): >>44533311 #
2. helloguillecl ◴[] No.44533311[source]
In Germany, calling someone by a crime they have been sentenced of, constitutes defamation.
replies(1): >>44533797 #
3. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44533797[source]
What? That makes no sense whatsoever.
replies(1): >>44534012 #
4. akudha ◴[] No.44534012{3}[source]
Why does it not make sense? If I was involved in a robbery at age 18, as a dumb kid, should I still be called "robber xyz" for the rest of my life? Especially if I turned my life around?
replies(1): >>44534139 #
5. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44534139{4}[source]
I agree that we should be forgiving, give people second chances etc, but that doesn't change the meaning of words. "Defamation" is when you damage someone's reputation by saying things about them that aren't true. If you were convicted of a crime long ago and someone draws attention to that fact, they're not defaming you. The truth isn't defamation, by definition.
replies(4): >>44534329 #>>44534335 #>>44534427 #>>44534943 #
6. mkehrt ◴[] No.44534329{5}[source]
> The truth isn't defamation, by definition. This is a famously American position.
replies(1): >>44534356 #
7. jolmg ◴[] No.44534335{5}[source]
> but that doesn't change the meaning of words.

Words can have multiple similar definitions with small variations. If I look up "defamation" I get:

> Defamation is a legal term that refers to any statement made by a person, whether verbal or printed, that causes harm to another person’s reputation or character. --- https://legaldictionary.net/defamation/

> Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

replies(1): >>44534502 #
8. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44534356{6}[source]
I'm not American, and we're discussing a UK news story.

But I genuinely didn't know that other countries do things differently. What does defamation even mean if it doesn't include the concept of untruth?

replies(1): >>44534822 #
9. burkaman ◴[] No.44534427{5}[source]
Calling someone a robber means they are currently a robber. It can be inaccurate and untrue in the same way that calling someone a bartender would be inaccurate and untrue if they are a lawyer who hasn't tended a bar in 20 years.

I don't like the idea of prosecuting people for this, but I don't think it's illogical.

replies(1): >>44535000 #
10. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44534502{6}[source]
I stand corrected.
replies(1): >>44536424 #
11. arh68 ◴[] No.44534822{7}[source]
Previously, [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40682485 (obviously, it means different things to different folks; I can't properly answer your question)

FWIW I'm only really familiar with the American usual.

12. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[] No.44534943{5}[source]
> The truth isn't defamation, by definition.

Perhaps you mean slander/libel?

replies(1): >>44536118 #
13. veeti ◴[] No.44535000{6}[source]
Would you extend the same courtesy to a murderer or child rapist?
replies(3): >>44535755 #>>44537216 #>>44537401 #
14. burkaman ◴[] No.44535755{7}[source]
Honestly I don't know, I think it would depend on how long ago the crime was and if there's a credible reason to believe they won't do it again. I do think there's a meaningful difference between "they murdered someone" and "they're a murderer", and in general I do prefer to describe people's actions as opposed to using "they're a ___" labels.
15. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44536118{6}[source]
Slander and libel are subcategories of defamation.

Libel = defamation in writing. Slander = defamation in speech.

16. amiga386 ◴[] No.44536424{7}[source]
Truth (in English law) is merely a defence to an accusation of libel or slander, and it is not an absolute defence. If you say or print true things about a person, that lowers their reputation in the eyes of an ordinary person, and you are motivated by malice, then you have still committed the crime of defamation.

English libel law is an evolution of the former English law known as scandalum magnatum -- "scandalizing the mighty". Basically, if you say bad things about powerful people, those powerful people will crush you with the law.

As an example, Robert Maxwell embezzled millions from his company's pension fund, and also used that money to sue anyone who slighted him - including anyone who said he was embezzling from his company's pension fund. He was never prosecuted for embezzling millions from his company's pension fund.

replies(1): >>44537011 #
17. worik ◴[] No.44537011{8}[source]
> He was never prosecuted for embezzling millions from his company's pension fund.

He escaped that. By dying. Probably suicide.

The walls were closing in

18. nothrabannosir ◴[] No.44537216{7}[source]
Just in case this is a leading question: there are many courtesies we extend some but not all people convicted of a crime. Bail, parole, etc.
19. nilamo ◴[] No.44537401{7}[source]
Why is such a person wandering around free if they were convicted? Do you think prison sentences are not harsh enough?