The British Post Office Scandal: How Not to Handle One

“The worst miscarriage of justice in British history,” it’s been called — “an affront to justice.” Hundreds of innocent people convicted on false evidence. Not a 16th Century witch hunt, but one in the 21st.

This true story was dramatized in a multi-part Masterpiece Theater production, “Mr. Bates vs The Post Office.” A disturbing window into an aspect of human nature.

The British Post Office introduced a new Fujitsu computer system called “Horizon,” for local postal outlets, run by private individuals (“sub-postmasters”), mostly as adjuncts to other businesses like little stores. Horizon started showing widespread account deficits. The Post Office’s “help line” was useless in sorting this out (and lied to callers that they were alone having these problems). Hundreds were forced to repay amounts ranging into tens of thousands; stripped of their licenses; nearly a thousand criminally prosecuted for theft and fraud. The P.O. insisted their contracts made them completely responsible. Many lives were destroyed. Several committed suicide.

When this began to unfold, you’d think someone high up in the P.O. would say, “Wait! This makes no sense! Something’s messed up here!”

But no.

A question that came up in the dramatization was — where did the money go? Not to the sub-postmasters, many being bankrupted by the repayment demands. But a question that somehow never arose was — how could those tiny postal outlets even have turnover in such large amounts in the first place?

It made, indeed, no sense at all. There was never anything to indicate that any money was actually missing. The “deficits” were just figments of Horizon computer glitches. That should have been obvious from the get-go.

Yet the Post Office muckety-mucks went into a bureaucratic crouch, refusing to entertain the possibility of anything wrong with the system, insisting all the prosecutions were perfectly proper. Oblivious to reason and the injustice. This continued for a decade. They went through the motions of an internal investigation, an outside review, and a mediation process for victims — all jerry-rigged to bury the truth and produce the desired results. Officialdom in all its gory glory.

It was a human unwillingness to acknowledge error. They also wanted to protect the P.O.’s “brand” from any opprobrium. Perhaps arguably understandable had there been much chance they’d succeed. But with hundreds of victims all across the country, the crap was bound to hit the fan somehow, eventually. Damaging the “brand” far more than an honest handling of the matter in the first place would have done.

They should have quickly realized something was wrong, and gotten out in front of it, doing everything possible to make things right. Instead they doubled down, violating the first rule of holes: if you’re in one, stop digging.

I’ve previously written that all human sins are ultimately rooted in arrogance. And reviewed a book titled Assholes – A Theory, also centralizing arrogance. The “Horizon” story is illustrative — behavior quintessentially arrogant. Asshole behavior.

Being fallible, I make mistakes in my own business. I try to correct them. But government bureaucracies have little impetus to do so, free to behave arrogantly instead. This is a key element of a traditional antipathy toward governmental power.

In the end of a very long and tortuous story, the sub-postmasters, led by the indefatigable Mr. Bates, won a sweeping judicial victory. That “affront to justice” quote came from appeal judges, voiding some of the many criminal convictions. The real criminals, it was now clear, were the Post Office bureaucrats.

Led by Paula Vennells. She almost seemed like a human being — almost. At the end, she was shown in church (she was also a pastor — a woman of God!) at last apologizing to the legions of people who’d suffered so cruelly. Yet still disclaiming criminal responsibility. And: her lips didn’t move. The contrition was only in her head.

Vennells was not prosecuted. Instead, awarded a CBE (“Commander of the British Empire,” a step below knighthood). Vennells later renounced the CBE, a gesture without effect; but King Charles has revoked it.

Yet even now the story’s not over. After the TV drama aired, the BBC News had a brief item quoting Vennells labelling the false numbers spewed out by Horizon not “bugs” but “exceptions” — to make them sound “non-emotive.”

The hole so deep no light can reach the bottom.

4 Responses to “The British Post Office Scandal: How Not to Handle One”

  1. Wolfgang Kurth Says:

    Yed, Frank, we were lucky enough to record, then watch “Bates vs the Post Office”. It was almost unbelievable. If it had been shown as a regular PBS fictional series, I would have written it off as a “over the top” drama. But the fact that it actually happened and is still not completely resolved, is a huge smear on the reputation of governmental corporate Britain. Of course, that could never happen here, (sarcasm).

    Wolfgang

  2. Anonymous Says:

    The Post Office Ltd. is a private corporation owned by the UK government. It purchased glitchy Horizon software from another private corporation, Fujitsu, that over-billed its small, independent retailers. Yet, you reserve your criticism for the government. While clearly the UK has a role as the shareholder, is the private sector unaccountable in this travesty? You write:

    “Being fallible, I make mistakes in my own business. I try to correct them. But government bureaucracies have little impetus to do so, free to behave arrogantly instead. This is a key element of a traditional antipathy toward governmental power.”

    While teasing out responsibility in this instance is fraught, it could be argued that the original sin was any form of privatization. It created a hybrid that tried to act as private sector entity which despite government ownership was free to make decisions that a fully accountable public entity might not.

    We are different. I have always seen government as positive force in my life. It cared for me when I was jobless. It provided my family health services when we could not afford it. It educated me and subsidized my pursuit of advancement in college and grad school. I would be at a loss to describe the myriad of ways it has improved my life and my community. It is not blameless, it is not incapable of profound error, but it sometimes functions so seamlessly and well that we take for granted the guardrails it (literally) provides or the miracle of a flush toilet’s emptying and filling.

    That is my bias.

  3. rationaloptimist Says:

    The Brit PO was not “privatized.” It is still fully a govt entity. It did contract with the “sub-postmasters;” all problems originated not with them but rather with the head office.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    This nonagenarian believes hostility to govt in principle–anarchism–is at bottom a rationale for untrammeled greed. Vide: AEI, CATO, Heritage, Ayn Rand, Jew-hating Buckley, Smiley-Swine Ron Reagan ad inf. When will the people disavow their contempt for egality, reason & justice? Democracy worketh not, so let’s surrogue w/seamless, green, global, syntelled, neuro-informatic, metamaterialed, CRISPRed humanism here & on a terraformed Mars. [Don Bronkema]

Leave a comment