After almost two decades, the British public and a growing number of British politicians have insisted that the British Post Office scandal is a matter of profound public interest and must no longer be concealed by the government, the civil service, or the Establishment. For England’s sake, this injustice demands a complete and transparent investigation. Click here to watch the Australian Channel 7 trailer for Mr Bates vs the Post Office, which aired in February 2024 and captures the scale of this national betrayal.
What makes the scandal so disturbing is that public servants inside the British Post Office knew the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the catastrophic accounting and billing errors. Yet they continued to blame innocent sub‑postmasters, many of whom were financially ruined, prosecuted, or imprisoned.
This pattern is painfully familiar to those of us who lived through the Australian COT arbitrations. Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to oversee our cases, refused to allow his own technical consultants the additional time they needed to diagnose the ongoing faults in Telstra’s Ericsson billing software. The parallels between the British Post Office scandal and the Australian Telstra scandal are unmistakable. In both cases, faulty technical equipment was at the heart of the problem, as demonstrated in this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/
Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office
The symmetry between Telstra’s concealed 1800‑service faults and the British Post Office’s Horizon catastrophe is now impossible to ignore, especially in an age where AI systems are being handed the same blind authority once given to flawed human‑written code. Frank Blount’s 1999 admission that Telstra’s billing software was substandard, systemic, and long denied mirrors Fujitsu’s quiet knowledge of Horizon’s failures. In both nations, executives knew their systems were broken, yet ordinary citizens were forced to fight impossible legal battles against machines presented as infallible. AI only sharpens the warning: when technology lies, institutions follow, and the public pays.
Stop Press - British and Australian fraud cases, specifically 'The COT Cases Arbitrations of the 1990s' and the British Post Office Scandal of the 2020s, are fundamentally similar, driven by severe government bureaucratic deception.
|
||
|
||
|
The chair of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, Professor Chris Hodges, has written to Darren Jones, the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Chief Secretary to the outgoing Prime Minister, urging action to deal with several outstanding problems related to the Post Office scandal. On behalf of the HCAB, Professor Hodges has set out a series of issues, the most pressing of which pertain to Postmasters and Post Office workers who still have criminal convictions. These people fall broadly into three groups: Capture Convictions Hodges notes the first two Capture appeals will not be heard before 2027. He believes...
The corruption in the COT Arbitration didn’t seep in or evolve — it was engineered into the framework from the first breath, fused into the marrow like a congenital deformity. The government built a process that mimicked legitimacy while being structurally incapable of delivering justice. From day one, the COT Cases were fed into a machine designed to shield Telstra, insulate government departments, and guarantee that no independent scrutiny of our evidence would ever occur. What unfolded wasn’t a bureaucratic failure; it was a controlled operation, executed with precision and protected by silence.
The symmetry between Telstra’s buried 1800‑service faults and the British Post Office’s Horizon disaster is now stark, almost clinical. Both institutions clung to defective systems, both denied the truth under oath, and both sacrificed ordinary citizens to preserve corporate and governmental reputations. Frank Blount’s 1999 admission — that Telstra’s billing software was substandard, systemic, and long concealed — mirrors Fujitsu’s quiet awareness of Horizon’s rot. In both countries, executives knew their machines were broken, yet citizens were forced into ruinous legal battles against technology presented as flawless. The corruption wasn’t incidental; it was policy.
