This is a great series of blogs. This is to the heart of visibility | behaviour | trust. Leadership having to answer allegations of enabling legal process to obfuscate behaviours that would undermine trust. Did they, did they not? No idea as of yet but the v | b | t outline reflects the totality of the question. Simples.
Our latest submissions (Working Paper 4) to the Horizon Inquiry on Horizon is up on the Lab site. It responds to the Williams’ Inquiry raising 4 issues about the scope of its work which suggests that someone (the Chairman? Post Office??) thinks Second Sight’s Investigations; legal work on civil and criminal cases brought by Post Office; and the catastrophe that was the Bates litigation (I discuss here in a video interview and we wrote about it extensively here) should not be looked at. Here is our submission summary. You can read the full submission here.
In essence, these submissions argue that an understanding of the Second Sight Investigation; the role of legal advice on shortfall cases, civil and criminal; and the conduct of the Bates litigation are fundamental to an exploration and understanding of the harms arising from POL’s use of the Horizon system.
The High Court and the…
View original post 199 more words