I wonder whether it is helpful to characterise all these affairs under the single heading of "mistrust in expertise". If we are to prevent more cases, I think we need to distinguish between experts who are lying and experts who are mistaken. It is important because different antennae are needed to detect each type.
In the Post Office scandal, there is a fair deal of evidence that some of those who were defending the Horizon system knew perfectly well that what they were saying was not supportable. Some people, it has been suggested, were outright lying.
And some - such as the investigator who signed a witness statement relating to Horizon - were making statements about matters in which which they had no expertise at all. As we learned from the hearing on Thursday, a key passage in the witness statement was written by lawyers taking instruction from the Post Office PR team - in other words, without any relevant IT expertise at all.
Contrast that with the Fire Control Operators advising Grenfell residents in the depths of a fire who (unless there is something I have missed) genuinely believed that it was safer to stay put than to step out into the flames.
As for those in authority over Grenfell Tower (landlord, local Council) who ignored the warnings in the months preceding the fire, did they "know" the truth in the way that some people at the Post Office "knew"? (I am not sure what the evidence from Grenfell has brought out on this point.) I think this question highlights that we also need to distinguish between experts advising the lay consumer on the action they need to take in real time (Shipman, LFB Control Room on the phone during a fire) and experts advising those in authority (Post Office talking to government and giving evidence to the courts) in circumstances where the recipient of the advice has the time and the resources to ask much more probing questions and debate the answers.
"Expertise" may be a theme. But I think it is much more complicated than that.
Thanks Simon - Very good points.
I wonder whether it is helpful to characterise all these affairs under the single heading of "mistrust in expertise". If we are to prevent more cases, I think we need to distinguish between experts who are lying and experts who are mistaken. It is important because different antennae are needed to detect each type.
In the Post Office scandal, there is a fair deal of evidence that some of those who were defending the Horizon system knew perfectly well that what they were saying was not supportable. Some people, it has been suggested, were outright lying.
And some - such as the investigator who signed a witness statement relating to Horizon - were making statements about matters in which which they had no expertise at all. As we learned from the hearing on Thursday, a key passage in the witness statement was written by lawyers taking instruction from the Post Office PR team - in other words, without any relevant IT expertise at all.
Contrast that with the Fire Control Operators advising Grenfell residents in the depths of a fire who (unless there is something I have missed) genuinely believed that it was safer to stay put than to step out into the flames.
As for those in authority over Grenfell Tower (landlord, local Council) who ignored the warnings in the months preceding the fire, did they "know" the truth in the way that some people at the Post Office "knew"? (I am not sure what the evidence from Grenfell has brought out on this point.) I think this question highlights that we also need to distinguish between experts advising the lay consumer on the action they need to take in real time (Shipman, LFB Control Room on the phone during a fire) and experts advising those in authority (Post Office talking to government and giving evidence to the courts) in circumstances where the recipient of the advice has the time and the resources to ask much more probing questions and debate the answers.
"Expertise" may be a theme. But I think it is much more complicated than that.
The Duty of Care and of Candou, seems to be anathema to certain politicians.
As usual an immensely helpful and insightful pulling together of all the threads Thank you Martin!