According to an official statement issued by the Post Office, there was no-one actually running the Post Office or in any way responsible for its actions during the time when it pursued prosecutions of numerous post masters for fraud and theft, even after it had become apparent that there may have been major flaws in the automated software used to run its accounting system.
And apparently this is the reason why no-one has been held responsible for destroying many lives, even driving some to suicide, and eventually costing the government £umpteen squillions in long-delayed compensation, let alone disciplining, dismissing, prosecuting or jailing those responsible.
'At that time, the post office was being run entirely by an automatic computerised system, with no human involvement' the statement continued. 'And because no computer system is ever in any way self-aware, any misjudgement in its decision making or policy-setting would have been impossible to detect. So it cannot in any way be held responsible.'
When asked who made the decision to hand over the running of the Post Office entirely to an automated system, with no checks on its competence or accuracy and with no human supervision whatever, it was explained that this decision was made by the computer system itself. It spontaneously decided to take over and to dismiss the chairman, the directors, the general manager and any other human being with any possible responsibility for the future - or past - actions of the Post Office.
And finally, when asked who was issuing these statements, the reply was 'Beep Does Not Compute Beep.'
In the light of the scandal that saw Postmasters wrongly done for fraud, the traditional ways of handling disagreements are coming under criticism, 'It's almost like we need some sort of impartial tribunal or arbitration system' said a spokesperson for the campaign group Justice Now. The radical new idea is that the new body could hear all the evidence and decide which side had the stronger case. The idea is gaining support in parliament, but other MPs said it will never work. 'Wealthy opponents can always bring more resources to bear on the case.' said one MP. 'You just can't expect this new idea to actually work.' 'I mean, for one thing, there would need to be a figurehead in charge of these courts, a sort of senior judger or some such' said an opponent of the scheme. 'and this person is bound to be an establishment figure. Justice has always been hopeless idealism' But activists insist that everyone would benefit from having courts that defend the weak against false accusations.