The worst thing is that the story originally broke in 2009 and nobody cared, it took a further 6 years before the prosecutions stopped and then another 9 years before they started to admit that mistakes were made. They thought they could just dehumanise the sub postmasters and pretend it was their fault
That’s the contract and everyone with a post office has signed it for the last hundred years. The difference is once they brought in the IT system the sub-postmasters no longer had the tools to audit their own accounts.
@@DarranGange There is absolutely no need to have any such clause in the contract because the fair way of dealing with a dispute is already set out in common law. Essentially if you do a deal with someone, as per an exchange, it is the party that caused the loss which is liable to the other party. Certain conditions are implied contractual conditions, which are what you would normally expect when entering a deal, i.e. including relevant competences. You do a job as an accountant and you imply you wont lose the client's money. The fact everyone signed this highly dodgy contract is shear lunacy. Lloyds names get big money for underwriting unlimited potential losses.
BigCo often jams unreasonable contracts down the little guy's throat. Or employees'. Here in the U.S. it's pretty common to have to sign an NDA, a Non-Compete, and several other agreements that benefit the employer and provide no benefits to the employee (or contractor) whatsoever. And you have little to no choice if you want to work for that company. So I have a little more sympathy for the subpostmasters who signed these agreements and essentially had no choice. Not stupid, just powerless.
@@TheLastITPodcast If enough walked away from the interview without a signature then they would not try it on. The trick in this life is to have alternatives. Never apply for a job you can't turn down. Yes I'm aware of what you say about NDAs and non-competitive agreements. They are bad news. They may clash with EU competition law in Europe. I think you get it worse over there.
My background: Trained on both ICL and IBM mainframes but worked 85% with IBM. However I did work on an ICL system for a couple of years. Interviewed with both the PO and Fujitsu but didn't follow up. Thank God! Fujitsu rescued what was left of the British Mainframe industry by taking over International Computers Limited (ICL was a British computer hardware,software and services company that operated from 1968 until 2002) in an effort to take on IBM on the international and home market. That is why is some broadcasts mention ICL Pathway as the original system superseded by the HORIZON system. In my long career working in London,The Netherlands,Luxembourg,Belgium,Germany and The Czech Republic. I have worked on system installation,acceptance testing,Problem/Change Management and system development cycle documentation. In my professional opinion the original Horizon system would not have passed our industry standard ISO 9000 and would have scored perhaps a 12 out of 100. This is based on me listening to most of the witnesses to the ongoing Statutory Inquiry currently being presided over by a retired High Court Judge!
A fascinating podcast thank you. I believe a there are issues you did not quite cover: Given the range of issues the software suffered we still are not at the bottom of how many sub-postmasters have had problems. I believe there still is a much larger number of sub-postmasters who have unjustly put money into their system to correct errors that have not yet come to the surface. Like the iceberg most of it goes unseen under the water. I also believe there should be serious consequences of the board of directors and senior management. The fundamental flaw in the system was not putting the branch ledger and branch at the core of the system and putting transactional comm’s secondary. The system was built in the time of the PC. Dumb terminal and mainframes were a thing of the past. This should not have been a big ask. The post office has been found out to have a bullying mentality to its entire staff in every department’s not just sub-post offices. I agree with many commentators in the government the post office cannot recover from this and should be pulled apart.
Thanks for listening. You're right - I think we've all only just begun to scratch the surface on the true impacts on subpostmasters not initially included in some of the statistics. And more accountability within the Post Office is needed before trued justice can be achieved. Thanks for your insightful comment.
Some fresh insights in this interview - THANK-YOU!
Our pleasure - thanks for listening!
The worst thing is that the story originally broke in 2009 and nobody cared, it took a further 6 years before the prosecutions stopped and then another 9 years before they started to admit that mistakes were made. They thought they could just dehumanise the sub postmasters and pretend it was their fault
Agreed - I was surprised in how long it had "been in the news" but yet didn't cause the stir until the TV drama. Amazing, and sad.
They signed a contract which was agreeing to underwrite "any" Post Office losses. How utterly stupid is that?
That’s the contract and everyone with a post office has signed it for the last hundred years. The difference is once they brought in the IT system the sub-postmasters no longer had the tools to audit their own accounts.
@@DarranGange There is absolutely no need to have any such clause in the contract because the fair way of dealing with a dispute is already set out in common law. Essentially if you do a deal with someone, as per an exchange, it is the party that caused the loss which is liable to the other party. Certain conditions are implied contractual conditions, which are what you would normally expect when entering a deal, i.e. including relevant competences. You do a job as an accountant and you imply you wont lose the client's money. The fact everyone signed this highly dodgy contract is shear lunacy. Lloyds names get big money for underwriting unlimited potential losses.
BigCo often jams unreasonable contracts down the little guy's throat. Or employees'. Here in the U.S. it's pretty common to have to sign an NDA, a Non-Compete, and several other agreements that benefit the employer and provide no benefits to the employee (or contractor) whatsoever. And you have little to no choice if you want to work for that company. So I have a little more sympathy for the subpostmasters who signed these agreements and essentially had no choice. Not stupid, just powerless.
@@TheLastITPodcast If enough walked away from the interview without a signature then they would not try it on. The trick in this life is to have alternatives. Never apply for a job you can't turn down. Yes I'm aware of what you say about NDAs and non-competitive agreements. They are bad news. They may clash with EU competition law in Europe. I think you get it worse over there.
My background: Trained on both ICL and IBM mainframes but worked 85% with IBM. However I did work on an ICL system for a couple of years. Interviewed with both the PO and Fujitsu but didn't follow up. Thank God! Fujitsu rescued what was left of the British Mainframe industry by taking over International Computers Limited (ICL was a British computer hardware,software and services company that operated from 1968 until 2002) in an effort to take on IBM on the international and home market. That is why is some broadcasts mention ICL Pathway as the original system superseded by the HORIZON system. In my long career working in London,The Netherlands,Luxembourg,Belgium,Germany and The Czech Republic. I have worked on system installation,acceptance testing,Problem/Change Management and system development cycle documentation. In my professional opinion the original Horizon system would not have passed our industry standard ISO 9000 and would have scored perhaps a 12 out of 100. This is based on me listening to most of the witnesses to the ongoing Statutory Inquiry currently being presided over by a retired High Court Judge!
Appreciate your perspective, especially since you're experienced in technology (especially doing it right). Thanks for listening and commenting!
A fascinating podcast thank you. I believe a there are issues you did not quite cover: Given the range of issues the software suffered we still are not at the bottom of how many sub-postmasters have had problems. I believe there still is a much larger number of sub-postmasters who have unjustly put money into their system to correct errors that have not yet come to the surface. Like the iceberg most of it goes unseen under the water. I also believe there should be serious consequences of the board of directors and senior management. The fundamental flaw in the system was not putting the branch ledger and branch at the core of the system and putting transactional comm’s secondary. The system was built in the time of the PC. Dumb terminal and mainframes were a thing of the past. This should not have been a big ask. The post office has been found out to have a bullying mentality to its entire staff in every department’s not just sub-post offices. I agree with many commentators in the government the post office cannot recover from this and should be pulled apart.
Thanks for listening. You're right - I think we've all only just begun to scratch the surface on the true impacts on subpostmasters not initially included in some of the statistics. And more accountability within the Post Office is needed before trued justice can be achieved. Thanks for your insightful comment.