Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
> Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
1. The public inquiry has begun digging into what actually happened.
2. An absolutely excellent TV drama has brought out in excruciating detail the misery inflicted on subpostmasters, and the unfairness of the processes.
The returned CBE is a consequence of the drama and the resulting public interest, not a cause.
I knew that this nonsense was going on, in a sort of subliminal way; I knew about the miscarriages of justice, from the MSM. The drama has - well - dramatized it. The drama's producer has expressed astonishment at the impact her show has made, but I'm not astonished. It's a really good drama. It pulls no punches. It must have been really hard to make, given that many of the people criticized are very powerful and rich, and that criticizing the rich and powerful can land you with very large bills to defend libel suits.
Why didn't you do five seconds of research, opened up https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html and confirmed the claim instead of accusing osmeone of lying, being a bad actor, and demanding an apology for someone else?
> If the ITV show is factually accurate, looks like the managers knowingly tried to send innocent people to prison to cover their own careers and reputation.
There is plenty of strong evidence that this is the case. Stronger than the evidence used against the post workers accused. Take note that no one is threatening the show runners with libel actions & such…
> They should have the book thrown at them.
And thrown hard. This is not a set of honest mistakes, but a protracted campaign to pervert the course of justice.
I pointed out that the article you posted said the exact opposite of what you claimed it said (in addition to saying what you claimed it said). How is that not acting in good faith? If the article is contradictory, you need to go to the primary documents, which were available from The Guardian.
> it's also speculation on your part to assume he did something especially wrong.
I don't think getting your fifteen minutes of fame is especially wrong. The fault is on the part of the public for being credible; that's how the market works, no?
> the political machinations that some of the ethics team involved themselves in to the point of employer conflict were heavily discussed here at the time.
It certainly seems like some of that ethics team appear, at best, as extremely bad faith actors in that drama.
Would the fact that they were disciplined repeatedly for their actions and told they were unacceptable be construed as guidance that they were out of line with the intent of "don't be evil"? It doesn't sound like they were fired on the spot but rather reprimanded on numerous occasions which Google most certainly documented. This would all be shared openly in a trial which would likely paint a pretty poor picture of the individuals.
>
> Are you suggesting I had the gullible interpretation?
Yes.
> What action would you suggest is the appropriate one to this PR move?
When these corporations put their money where their mouth is, we can start to seriously consider such statements. Until then, laughter and derision are appropriate.
> Compare what he wrote to what he was accused of writing.
Given that so few people do this (in general, not just in regards to RMS), A smear is just as bad for PR as a non-smear, so it makes sense that organizations would want to limit collateral damage ASAP.
Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
> Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
reply