Comment by jordanb
6 days ago
I went on a deep dive on this scandal about a year or so ago. One thing that struck me is the class element.
Basically, the Post Office leadership could not understand why someone would buy a PO franchise. It's a substantial amount of money up front, and people aren't allowed to buy multiple franchises, so every PO was an owner/operator position. Essentially people were "buying a job".
The people in leadership couldn't understand why someone would buy the opportunity to work long hours at a retail position and end up hopefully clearing a middle class salary at the end of the year. They assumed that there must be a real reason why people were signing up and the real reason was to put their hands in the till.
So they ended up assuming the postmasters were stealing, and the purpose of the accounting software was to detect the fraud so it could be prosecuted. When the accounting software started finding vast amounts of missing funds, they ignored questions about the software because it was working as intended. I bet if the opposite had happened, and it found very little fraud, they would have become suspicious of the software because their priors were that the postmasters were a bunch of thieves.
Someone brought this up in a previous HN comment section as an example of trust in software ruining peoples lives. But your explanation is far more human and recontextualizes it a bit for me - it just happened to be that this was done with software, but the real motivation was contempt for the lower classes and could have easily have happened 100 years ago with an internal investigation task force.
Growing up half in England and US I feel British culture is more attuned to the class aspects to this kind of event. Traditionally America likes to pretend this kind of class contempt doesn't exist (think of, people on welfare angry at welfare queens, unaware they will be affected by legislation they support).
> Growing up half in England and US I feel British culture is more attuned to the class aspects to this kind of event. Traditionally America likes to pretend this kind of class contempt doesn't exist (think of, people on welfare angry at welfare queens, unaware they will be affected by legislation they support).
As an immigrant to the US from latin america that has spent significant time in britain, this statement is the complete opposite of my experience to the point of ridiculousness.
Britain is the most openly classist western country I have ever been in.
I think you misunderstood the parent post. It states people in the UK are more aware/recognizant of "class" - not that they are less classist (i.e. prejudiced)
The example of lower class people not recognizing so in the US is meant to be an example of lack of class awareness/recognition; not of less (or more) classism (prejudice based on class)
Some high class Brits have been some of the most elitist and entitled people I’ve ever met.
> Traditionally America likes to pretend this kind of class contempt doesn't exist
It just manifests as racism.
Most claims of racism in America are in fact classism. Very, very few people have actual dislike of others based on race. But a whole lot of people dislike people due to culture or class signals.
10 replies →
there's still regular ol classism, too, racism is just part of the calculus. Poor white folks don't have it good, they just have it less bad than poor not-white folks
3 replies →
Porque no los dos?
There’s class contempt too, no one wants to be one of the poors.
6 replies →
[flagged]
>libs think
Please don’t bring that nonsense here
2 replies →
So the PO creates a franchise program that they later decide isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor, and instead of revising the terms of the franchise program to make it so, they assume that the participants are criminals and prosecute them?
The same way many think about welfare/unemployment/disability schemes.
Constant hoops to jump through to prove they're looking for work or still incapable.
Or in the case of illness to prove they're still sick. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101
There is a rather famous book written on this subject.
Catch-22.
In order to be given disability you must jump through so many hoops that no one whom is actually sick could complete them. Or how in unemployment you must prove you must spend your time proving you are looking for a job so you cannot spend you time actually looking for a job. My personal fav because its almost universal is sick-day policies that codify 100% abuse of sick days because people are punished for not using them because some people were "abusing" their sick days.
In the case of the book to be discharged from military service they must prove they are insane which no insane person could complete.
2 replies →
Yeah but in the UK there actually are lots of people claiming benefits that probably shouldn't be. Especially Personal Independent Payments.
It's enough of an issue that even Labour (left wing) is having to deal with it. Though as usual Starmer has chickened out (I think this is like the third thing that was obviously a good move that he's backed down on after dumb backlash).
7 replies →
[flagged]
15 replies →
there is lots of welfare fraud. if you think money should just be handed out without question then you start handing your money out first.
1 reply →
> isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor
I think this is the parent’s point: this is the POV of the rich and powerful who lead the organization. They can’t imagine someone in a different position seeing these franchises as a way to secure good (or at least decent), long-term, stable employment.
I see you've worked with a moribund bureaucracy before.
sociopathic lack of empathy basically
Interesting how supposed fraud from lower class people is a high priority that must be punished, but fraud from upper class people is almost always protected by the corporate veil.
I came to realize spending few minutes every so many years to cast a vote in between the purchase of that great massage gun and groceries shopping, for party members who have been extensively vetted and not by you, doesn’t entitle to any control. Democracy is simply the most successful strategy to make believe into fairness and reduce costs of exercising power. With the capability to excise taxes and leverage them into debt that will always be repaid, one way or another, until the last citizen breathes government is, and always was, the greatest business of all times. Corporations who invest at every level, all the time, to make a buck do buy control. Mostly proportional to their investments into the wheels of government.
Let's not even talk about the financial crisis
We solved that by printing money and bailing everyone out, they didn't even have to promise not to do it again, such good chaps.
This is a salient observation that I don’t think has been presented bluntly enough by the media or popular culture (such as Mr Bates Vs The Post Office).
The UK is class-obsessed, which is not as immediately clear to the rest of the world (especially US). Lends a lot of credence to your theory.
As a cultural mutt between US and UK, I think UK is "class-aware" and US is more obsessed with the idea that if we all wear jeans then class isn't a thing. I see the same class contempt in US as the UK, and not recognizing it for what it is keeps people divided.
I agree that contempt arises in both cultures. My point about the UK was more around the phenomenon that the class "obsession" stems from the notion that somebody's class in the UK is ostensibly immutable from birth. (It is my impression that class in the US is much more about money; your status and class can be correlated / increased by your level of wealth).
In the UK it doesn't really matter if you become a millionaire or billionaire, you still won't be able to perforate the perception of "where you came from". This leads to all kinds of baseless biases such as OP's observation / point.
5 replies →
In the UK class is about your education, how you speak and who your parents are and, to a lesser extent, money.
In the US I get the impression that it is much more about money. And therefore less static.
The money is implied by having parents who can afford your private school fees.
1 reply →
I found this comment insightful but I feel I must itirate ( maybe its not needed), that it is not "clear" if leadership were ignorant, as you said, ( though Im sure you are part right ), I have read that it was malicious leadership trying to protect their own asses as per another comment.
I don't mean to let the leadership off the hook. What they did was profoundly wrong and they have blood on their hands.
There were two phases though: the initial rollout, and sometime later the coverup.
If they had asked very reasonable questions about the software during the rollout there would have been no need for a coverup. No software rolls out without any bugs and it's really reasonable to ask why so many post offices had missing funds and if they were sure if it was real or not. The PO leadership basically ignored all evidence that there were bugs from the very beginning, and that makes no sense until you realize that they were starting from the premise that the postmasters are thieves and this software is going to catch them.
> No software rolls out without any bugs and it's really reasonable to ask why so many post offices had missing funds and if they were sure if it was real or not.
It would be reasonable, but that also assumes the ass-covering started post rollout rather than pre rollout.
>What they did was profoundly wrong and they have blood on their hands.<
This, so much this. Not ONLY that but they kept DOUBLING DOWN for YEARS.
I SO SO wish they would be held accountable for the pain, suffering, Chapter 11's, AND the suicides.
2 replies →
What I've seen so far suggest they were just ignorant and victims of confirmational bias etc. You can see that when they won some cases they wrote internally something to the effect of "Final we can put to rest all those concerns about these cases blablabla". So it became self-validating. Also the courts and defense lawyers didn't manage to the see the pattern and in the huge numbers of such cases. Each defendant was fighting their own battle. Also, a mathematician from Fujitsu gave "convincing" testimony they didn't have any errors. A lot was down to lack of understanding of how technology works. The fact that xx millions of transactions were processed without errors doesn't preclude that there could be errors in a small number, as was the case. In this case sometimes coming down to random effects like if race conditions were triggered.
Organisations can be fiendishly good at cultivating this kind of unaccountability. The software is managed by a contractor, maybe a project management company, a local PM team all of which focus on the performance of management and maybe budgets and timelines. Then you have some internal technical experts who just focus on the detail but have no influence on the whole. When things go wrong it is sent down a tech support ticketing system with multiple tiered defenses to deflect complaints. At some point it maybe gets to the point that an investigation is started. But obviously it needs to be done by someone neutral and independent who doesn't actually know the people involved or necessarily the technical details. And they are accountable not for outcomes but how closely they follow policy. A policy written by people outside the normal chain of command and no real skin in the game. At some point it reaches a legal team and then everyone else takes a step back. No one ever takes any responsibility beyond.an occasional case review conducted in a collegial atmosphere in a stuffy conference room by bored people. All the structures are put in place with good intentions but just protect people from actually having to make a decision and accept consequences. Except for the poor soul on the front line who only ever has consequences.
You're probably right—I just wanted to share a few thoughts and would welcome any corrections or clarification.
If I were in leadership, I'd assume there are edge cases I'm missing and take responsibility accordingly. Id just assume that is my job, as the leader, that is why I am paid, to make important decisions and stop the company from making big mistakes.
This isn’t a critique of your view—just an observation: there's a recurring theme on HN that leadership shouldn't be held responsible when things break down, as if being a CEO is just another job, not a position of accountability.
Where does this come from? Is it a uniquely American or capitalist norm?
I recall ( i dont think incorrectly) 1980s Japanese leadership—tech/auto who took failures so seriously they’d resign or even mention/think of sudoku.
4 replies →
"victims of confirmational bias"
dude
2 replies →
I suspect there's more to it in than that.
I'd wager there was a solid amount of general incompetence involved at the PO "corporate" - management politically couldn't admit that their consultingware could be anything other than perfect, because they signed off on the decision to buy it, and probably on all the work orders that got them to that point.
If anyone from PO management or that of the consulting firm (Fujitsu, I believe?) ever get any work again, it will be a travesty of justice.
I regret to inform you that not only is Fujitsu not banned from UK government work, they're not even banned from continuing the same project https://www.publictechnology.net/2025/03/17/business-and-ind...
There has been a lot of questions just in the last few days about Fujitsu continuing to bid for government contracts even when they said they wouldn’t. A random google result https://www.politico.eu/article/post-office-scandal-hit-fuji...
Wow. That is the kind of thing that every reasonable person should be calling their MP's office about daily.
2 replies →
Yes at some point it turned into CYA. When the leadership started realizing that there were problems with the software they started doubling down, getting even more aggressive with prosecutions, because they were trying to hide their own fuckups.
But when the ball started rolling, as the software rolled out and was finding missing funds everywhere, you'd think a normal person would have asked "are we sure there are no bugs here?" That was never done, I believe, because the software was matching the leadership's priors.
> That was never done, I believe, because the software was matching the leadership's priors.
That has to be the most egregious confirmation bias I've heard about.
what's the mistake of fujitsu here ? we all know how software is made and that bugs happen and if nobody reports them they never get fixed
These kinds of assumptions about fraud always make me wonder about the folks in charge.
I was at a company acquired by silicon valley company. Our tech support department was folded into another tech support department. Immediately the folks in the valley were upset that we closed more cases / had far higher customer satisfaction scores ... by far. They made no secret that they assumed that us mid-westerners doing the same job had to be inferior at the same job.
Eventually a pool of managers in the valley developed a full blown conspiracy theory that we were cooking the books by making fake cases and so on. It just had to be that right? No other explanation.
They finally got someone in an outside department to look into it. They found folks closing cases prematurely and even duplicating cases. The people doing it all worked for the managers pointing fingers at everyone else ...
Sometimes the folks who talk about fraud think those things because that's how they work.
Accusations are often confessions.
I've been following this since the guardian wrote about it, maybe 2011 or 2013 (private eye was earlier) It was insane. I couldn't understand the lack of fuss. Maybe it is because as a programmer I guess that 95 percent of all software is complete shit and most of the developers don't know or don't care.
You've hit the nail on the head "why would anyone want a middle class life" yeah they have never known anything less than that.
The other factor to me is the careerism, all that matters is the project success, who cares if the riff raff end up committing suicide. Honestly listening to some of the tapes of those meetings makes me feel sick. Thing is, I think so many career orientated people I know wouldn't even consider that what went on in the meetings was beyond the pale. It's black mirror level.
I'm from Ireland, but I live on "mainland Britain" the UK class system is mind boggling. I think the establishment here despises the "great unwashed". God help any working class person who ends up in the courts system.
One final thing, Paula Vennells was an ordained church minister. She was preaching while she was overseeing the destruction of so many innocent hardworking people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells
I don't know why that makes this all worse but some how it does. Somehow it speaks to what the UK is or has become.
I doubt she'll get the prison time she deserves. Actually I doubt she'll serve any time at all.
>One final thing, Paula Vennells was an ordained church minister. She was preaching while she was overseeing the destruction of so many innocent hardworking people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells
She was very nearly parachuted in a Bishop of London, off the 'success' of her term in the post office:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67923190
> One final thing, Paula Vennells was an ordained church minister. She was preaching while she was overseeing the destruction of so many innocent hardworking people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells > > I don't know why that makes this all worse but some how it does. Somehow it speaks to what the UK is or has become.
It makes it worse because most people are familiar with the tenets of christianity and know that this behavior is counter to that value system.
I think it's one of the most redeeming points of christianity/religion in general -- there is a standard to which people can be judged and agree to be judged. That's why it makes it worse, this person is not only doing terrible things, but doing terrible things while professing to believe a value system that would not condone it.
Where can I listen to these tapes, particularly the ones you describe as black-mirror level?
For a while the YouTube algorithm was suggesting clips of them to me. I think it was from a British newspaper.
Fascinating. Do you have references for the motives/biases of the PO leadership?
My entry-point was listening to this podcast, it's pretty long but it goes into the fact that the purpose of horizon was to detect fraud and reduce shrinkage, that the leadership and their consultants were coming up with outsized estimates for the amount of fraud and using that as financial justification for the project.
They also talk about postmaster's motivations for buying a franchise and how sitting behind a retail desk in a small town with a modest but steady income is actually one of the best outcomes available to the type of working-class Briton who was buying the franchise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j
I haven't listened to the podcast, but I think you may be oversimplifying.
The origin of Horizon is that ICL won the tender for a project to computerise the UK's benefits payment system -- replacing giro books (like cheque books) with smart cards (like bank cards):
https://inews.co.uk/news/post-office-warned-fujitsu-horizon-...
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtr...
Sure, it was also expected to detect fraud, but overall it was a "modernising" project. The project failed disastrously because ICL were completely incompetent at building an accounting system, the system regularly made huge mistakes, and the incoming government scrapped it.
ICL was nonetheless still very chummy with government, as it was concieved of by 1960s British politicians who basically wanted a UK version of IBM because they didn't want Americans being in control of all the UK's computer systems. ICL used to operate mainframes and supply "computer terminals" to government and such, which is why they needed a lot of equipment from Fujitsu, which is why Fujitsu decided to buy them.
ICL/Fujitsu still kept the contract to computerize Post Office accounting more generally -- Horizon. Post Offices could literally have pen-and-paper accounting until this! Yes, the project was also meant to look for fraud and shrinkage, but at its heart it was there to modernise, centralise and reduce costs. If only it wasn't written by incompetent morons who keep winning contracts because they're sweet with government.
Forgive my indelicate question, but why would someone buy a PO franchise?
1) The franchise actually does represent a decent amount of stability and financial security for the franchisee. Well-run locations typically could clear a modest profit for the owner. These were not money losing franchises for the most part (until the prosecutions started of course).
2) The post offices were geographically distributed pretty evenly throughout the UK so there were positions in far-flung locations well outside London. In many of these communities it was a good and stable job compared to what else was available.
3) Many of the postmasters reported liking working retail positions where they get a lot of face time with customers. In many small towns the post office was a central part of the community.
I bet number 3 on your list there is super-appealing to many people. It sounds lovely to be the kind of person in a smaller community that everyone knows and says hi to, that helps you out with paying your bills or whatever it is. I’m guessing you’re also often the closest contact to the state in a smaller village, so there’s probably all sorts of applications and permits you’re asked to help out with.
Especially if you’re on the older side, it sounds like an absolutely wonderful way to spend your time. Assuming the post office doesn’t try to ruin your life afterwards.
It might not be fully clear to the reader, but many of these Post Office franchises are co-located with a Spar, or other shop. People have to go to the Post Office (IME to a greater extent than here in the US where I now live) and they then shop for other items. Obviously, other businesses tend to cluster around as well.
There are situations where franchisees don't offer other services. These folks tend to be older and for most of the life of the franchise haven't had the need for additional income earlier in the life of the franchise. They don't have the energy and don't want to take on the risk of expanding now. When they retire, they'll probably close up shop as their children have other jobs.
The rural Post Office where I grew up in the 80s and 90s was accessible to a wide area just off the main road. It served a wider area than the current one. The Postmistress' family also farmed. When that closed the natural place to setup was in the closes village because that was projected to grow in population. That development would result in the old Post Office building being knocked down to make way for a dual carriageway. Eventually a few more Post Office franchises appeared with their shops in that part of the county.
People can read more at https://runapostoffice.co.uk/.
My inlaws ran a rural UK post office for a time (70s, maybe early 80s?). I'm not sure how they got in to it, but seemed to enjoy it while they did it. Small village, low volume of foot traffic, etc. I got a sense it almost felt like a civic duty, but I may be reading too much in to the earlier conversations.
Nevermind sibling comment about money-losing businesses, there are many small business operations like this where a substantial amount of capital buys a relatively moderate paying retail job. Think things like Subway franchises, or gas stations.
Some folks like running a small shop, being their own boss, and serving their neighborhood community.
People buy into all kinds of money-losing businesses... Edible Arrangements, Nothing Bundt Cakes, various multi-level marketing type of schemes.
And yes, a lot of people are willing to go into debt to effectively pay to have a job.
Running a pub is a time-honoured way to lose money in the UK. They're essentially scams to steer the life savings of the working class into the accounts of large breweries.
Edit: A timely news article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8llxmnx7o
> And yes, a lot of people are willing to go into debt to effectively pay to have a job.
That's the same _class_ element that OP was talking about, no?
I guess most of the people on HN don't see issue with people going into debt to get a degree, which is supposed to get them a job.
So how is it different to people going into debt to buy a franchise?
It's even a more straightforward way to actually get a job, while a degree, if it goes out of fashion on the job market, would have absolutely no use, and you'll have to flip the same burgers as the lad with no degree and no student debt.
It's not much different from going into debt to get a degree to get a job. Especially if your chosen field has only a single employer. In fact the college degree is often more speculative and risky, and a worse deal.
Historically it wasnt a bad thing since it was an add on to an existing shop. The general idea being that I would come in to pick up my pension/tv licence or various other things the PO used to be the source for and then spend it in the other part of the shop.
Pick up a TV license! Something else no sane person would do.
Its in OPs comment
> a retail position and end up hopefully clearing a middle class salary
Normal retail work is below the poverty line.
Beyond that i think it might be the social/community aspect. I simply can't use the post office in my town as its used as a social club for everyone over 70. Some people are just in to that kinda thing i suppose.
Why would someone buy a Subway franchise?
Demand for postal services is, on a long horizon, generally more consistent than demand for any particular junk food.
The better question is: why the hell would the government sell a PO franchise?
This is utterly illogical. Who in their right mind would commit a crime with a 100% probability of getting caught?
This isn't a classic embezzlement of public funds, where the people receiving the money are also the people deciding whether it was well spent or not and hence could easily divert some of the money through behind the scenes deals with contractors without getting caught.
The "embezzlement" here is on the level of getting an invoice and not paying it.
That's interesting. I read a lot about this case, but I don't recall anything along these lines.
This does explain why the leadership was so stubborn.
How good or bad of a decision was it in reality? E.g. what was the real salary on top of what one would earn from investing in index?
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Conversely, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
There once was grafitti in my city which read something like:
"Every system creates,
the bullshit it deserves"
Interesting insight. Thanks.