FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Post office scandal
Post office scandal
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. ... Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed." Do you think that those 2 are a modern phenomenon? | |||
| |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. The misplaced conviction that anything a computer says cannot possibly be wrong. Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed." There is a problem in such systems. From an accounting POV. It should be impossible for the software to fail and double entries just lost in the ether. From a coding POV this is just tripe. You can test a new system as much as you want. But if you then try and make the system do new things it can't handle without testing in the future. There is no guarantee the coding holds. Sadly management were under impression that the coding couldn't go wrong and that the double entry system was infallible. | |||
| |||
| |||
"There is a petition, that has over a million signatures, to strip Paula Vennells of herCBE." More aptly, she should be prosecuted ailing with the others involved. | |||
| |||
"There is a petition, that has over a million signatures, to strip Paula Vennells of herCBE. More aptly, she should be prosecuted ailing with the others involved." Exactly! Handing back he CBE is a token gesture. She, and lots of others who lied and knew for a fact the system was shit need to be prosecuted | |||
"What I find hard to handle is the prosecution service. So I guess there where hardly any arrests for theft in the post office for years. Then a new system was introduced and within years there are loads. Surly the criminal system failed as well any Judge should have asked questions at the rise in prosecutions. " they were private prosecutions. So I'm not sure how much the justice system saw the change on levels (or needed to opine on it) versus looking at each case. I'd also guess that the narrative was the system was better at identifying fraud rather than incidences had increased. | |||
| |||
"A few things concern me... 1. Will the taxpayer have to fund compensation? " Who else would pay it ? | |||
| |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . "  | |||
| |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . " Fujitsu and The Post Office Ltd | |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . " They *should* | |||
"What I find hard to handle is the prosecution service. So I guess there where hardly any arrests for theft in the post office for years. Then a new system was introduced and within years there are loads. Surly the criminal system failed as well any Judge should have asked questions at the rise in prosecutions. " It was a self fulfilling prophecy. The new system is introduced, it works so well it immediately starts to catch the corrupt sub-postmasters, company profits rise, a win-win situation. | |||
"There is a petition, that has over a million signatures, to strip Paula Vennells of herCBE." She's now a priest | |||
| |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . " The Horizon Project was originally started by International Computers Limited (ICL) a British computer hardware, computer software and computer services company that operated from 1968 until 2002. The company had an increasingly close relationship with Fujitsu from the early 1980s, culminating in Fujitsu becoming sole shareholder in 1998. ICL was rebranded as Fujitsu in April 2002. | |||
"Vennells has now said she will hand back her CBE. On balance that seems the right thing in this instance, but got an uneasy feeling there's the whiff of the lynch mob behind it. Justice needs to be administered in courts in the cold light of day not by baying TV viewers on their sofas. " It's a token gesture. Only the Monarch, on advice from the Forfeiture Committee, can remove an honour. Ms Vennells can still call herself a CBE, until the above happens. | |||
"Vennells has now said she will hand back her CBE. On balance that seems the right thing in this instance, but got an uneasy feeling there's the whiff of the lynch mob behind it. Justice needs to be administered in courts in the cold light of day not by baying TV viewers on their sofas. It's a token gesture. Only the Monarch, on advice from the Forfeiture Committee, can remove an honour. Ms Vennells can still call herself a CBE, until the above happens." I think she's happy as long as she keeps her pension and wealth | |||
| |||
"Any comment from Gordon Brown who sold off royal mail at under value. £400m dividends paid out to foreign investors last year. " how much was from his signposting causing a drop in MV and how much of this was hindsight following market increases ? | |||
"Any comment from Gordon Brown who sold off royal mail at under value. £400m dividends paid out to foreign investors last year. how much was from his signposting causing a drop in MV and how much of this was hindsight following market increases ? " but also, good random side track | |||
"Any comment from Gordon Brown who sold off royal mail at under value. £400m dividends paid out to foreign investors last year." That £400m was the total outlay, not just the amount that went to foreign investors. And only £200m went to shareholders as a dividend, the other £200m was used to buy back shares from the market. And that was in 2021, after business improved during CoViD. There was no dividend payment last year. So, not relevant to the topic being discussed, and not accurate. Well done. | |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . Fujitsu and The Post Office Ltd" If post office Ltd have to pay would it be an end to the post office. But I eash case there must have been a Juge to over see the case surly they must take some responsibility for sending inosent people to prison. | |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . "Software that was tested and accepted by the post office who are ultimately accountable for reporting issues and ensuring they are fixed.... They seem to have taken a well trodden path of lying and bullying people on an individual basis. What interests me the most, is there was never a check by the post office to see where these large sums of money had gone, bank account checks, CCTV etc, very inconvenient! | |||
| |||
"Two things… 1) Why has it taken a TV series to be made to make the media (generally) and the public at large to wake up and become so outraged? This has been in the news for years. It’s kind of damning on all of us as a nation that we have ignored ten years or so of this bubbling away in the news, but once a TV programme gets made, it becomes an issue of national importance. 2) the Post Office (just like every other piece of U.K. infrastructure) should never have been privatised in the first place. Privatisation has failed ordinary people on this country and this is just another example of failure. The privatisation experiment needs ending and national infrastructure needs bringing back under National ownership for the greater good of all of us." The PO is still owned by the state. | |||
"Two things… 1) Why has it taken a TV series to be made to make the media (generally) and the public at large to wake up and become so outraged? This has been in the news for years. It’s kind of damning on all of us as a nation that we have ignored ten years or so of this bubbling away in the news, but once a TV programme gets made, it becomes an issue of national importance. 2) the Post Office (just like every other piece of U.K. infrastructure) should never have been privatised in the first place. Privatisation has failed ordinary people on this country and this is just another example of failure. The privatisation experiment needs ending and national infrastructure needs bringing back under National ownership for the greater good of all of us." 1) well yes quite true. At least it has raised awareness finally. 2) I am often stating my position with regards to nationalised industries. I strongly believe utilities and transport should be national assets. However, I do not feel the same way about The Post Office. They are, and have been for a long time, a retailer. Once disaggregated from Royal Mail (which is a whole different discussion) I do not see why POL should be a nationalised organisation. POL and Fujitsu need to be punished for this. The latter via a moratorium on any new govt contracts for a set period perhaps? | |||
"Vennells has now said she will hand back her CBE. On balance that seems the right thing in this instance, but got an uneasy feeling there's the whiff of the lynch mob behind it. Justice needs to be administered in courts in the cold light of day not by baying TV viewers on their sofas. It's a token gesture. Only the Monarch, on advice from the Forfeiture Committee, can remove an honour. Ms Vennells can still call herself a CBE, until the above happens. I think she's happy as long as she keeps her pension and wealth " I reckon she acted on legal advice to avert publicity and possible legal action if she acted fast. | |||
"Two things… 1) Why has it taken a TV series to be made to make the media (generally) and the public at large to wake up and become so outraged? This has been in the news for years. It’s kind of damning on all of us as a nation that we have ignored ten years or so of this bubbling away in the news, but once a TV programme gets made, it becomes an issue of national importance. 2) the Post Office (just like every other piece of U.K. infrastructure) should never have been privatised in the first place. Privatisation has failed ordinary people on this country and this is just another example of failure. The privatisation experiment needs ending and national infrastructure needs bringing back under National ownership for the greater good of all of us. 1) well yes quite true. At least it has raised awareness finally. 2) I am often stating my position with regards to nationalised industries. I strongly believe utilities and transport should be national assets. However, I do not feel the same way about The Post Office. They are, and have been for a long time, a retailer. Once disaggregated from Royal Mail (which is a whole different discussion) I do not see why POL should be a nationalised organisation. POL and Fujitsu need to be punished for this. The latter via a moratorium on any new govt contracts for a set period perhaps? " Why should Fujitsu be punished? | |||
"Two things… 1) Why has it taken a TV series to be made to make the media (generally) and the public at large to wake up and become so outraged? This has been in the news for years. It’s kind of damning on all of us as a nation that we have ignored ten years or so of this bubbling away in the news, but once a TV programme gets made, it becomes an issue of national importance. 2) the Post Office (just like every other piece of U.K. infrastructure) should never have been privatised in the first place. Privatisation has failed ordinary people on this country and this is just another example of failure. The privatisation experiment needs ending and national infrastructure needs bringing back under National ownership for the greater good of all of us. 1) well yes quite true. At least it has raised awareness finally. 2) I am often stating my position with regards to nationalised industries. I strongly believe utilities and transport should be national assets. However, I do not feel the same way about The Post Office. They are, and have been for a long time, a retailer. Once disaggregated from Royal Mail (which is a whole different discussion) I do not see why POL should be a nationalised organisation. POL and Fujitsu need to be punished for this. The latter via a moratorium on any new govt contracts for a set period perhaps? Why should Fujitsu be punished? " In the Civil courts, it depends what was in the contract between The PO and Fujitsu. If the latter failed to meet contractual commitments I'd have thought The PO would already be compensated. In the Criminal courts, Fujitsu may have a liability if they lied, or withheld information that resulted in false prosecutions. | |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. The misplaced conviction that anything a computer says cannot possibly be wrong. Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed." See how they scramble in the house trying to put wrongs right, it is all be their own design, legislative forms, rules of the governed created that allows the mediocre chosen ones to get away with their diabolical behaviour. Hillsborough, Iraq war inquiry, Grenfell, this scandal all take years giving the guilty their innocence.  | |||
"Two things… 1) Why has it taken a TV series to be made to make the media (generally) and the public at large to wake up and become so outraged? This has been in the news for years. It’s kind of damning on all of us as a nation that we have ignored ten years or so of this bubbling away in the news, but once a TV programme gets made, it becomes an issue of national importance. 2) the Post Office (just like every other piece of U.K. infrastructure) should never have been privatised in the first place. Privatisation has failed ordinary people on this country and this is just another example of failure. The privatisation experiment needs ending and national infrastructure needs bringing back under National ownership for the greater good of all of us. 1) well yes quite true. At least it has raised awareness finally. 2) I am often stating my position with regards to nationalised industries. I strongly believe utilities and transport should be national assets. However, I do not feel the same way about The Post Office. They are, and have been for a long time, a retailer. Once disaggregated from Royal Mail (which is a whole different discussion) I do not see why POL should be a nationalised organisation. POL and Fujitsu need to be punished for this. The latter via a moratorium on any new govt contracts for a set period perhaps? Why should Fujitsu be punished? In the Civil courts, it depends what was in the contract between The PO and Fujitsu. If the latter failed to meet contractual commitments I'd have thought The PO would already be compensated. In the Criminal courts, Fujitsu may have a liability if they lied, or withheld information that resulted in false prosecutions. " The PO must have signed off on the Horizon software and would have definitely been responsible for testing the software to the agreed design, and also accountable for the software once handed over. If They moved the support in house they would be the change owners, and even if they contracted Fujitsu to support the software, it would be the responsibility of the PO to ask for any change due to bugs / defects. The only way Fujitsu would be held to account is if they were asked to resolve the issue and they failed to action that and reported they had. The other thing to consider is the software performing as designed. Keeping it simple, if there is a set function 1 + 1 = 4, that function is performing as designed, it would not be Fujitsu who is held to account for that as it would have been a function requested by the PO. | |||
"The PO must have signed off on the Horizon software and would have definitely been responsible for testing the software to the agreed design ..." That's not how software projects work. The end customer doesn't have the skills to know how to test the software, so all of the testing is done by the software company. Obviously the customer asks for a demonstration that the software does the things that are important, and asks for an assertion that adequate testing has been done, but they don't look at any of the low-level test procedures. | |||
"The PO must have signed off on the Horizon software and would have definitely been responsible for testing the software to the agreed design ... That's not how software projects work. The end customer doesn't have the skills to know how to test the software, so all of the testing is done by the software company. Obviously the customer asks for a demonstration that the software does the things that are important, and asks for an assertion that adequate testing has been done, but they don't look at any of the low-level test procedures." The PO would provide testing capabilities to accept the the solution, it would be UAT and ORT. This would be SME's those inside the PO that supported the design, provided the NFR's and ultimately own the rollout plan to the users and training. Any gaps in the PO capabilities would be plugged by IT contractors who would bring their specific skills to the PO through the delivery and test, working for the PO. | |||
"The PO must have signed off on the Horizon software and would have definitely been responsible for testing the software to the agreed design ..." "That's not how software projects work. The end customer doesn't have the skills to know how to test the software, so all of the testing is done by the software company. Obviously the customer asks for a demonstration that the software does the things that are important, and asks for an assertion that adequate testing has been done, but they don't look at any of the low-level test procedures." "The PO would provide testing capabilities to accept the the solution, it would be UAT and ORT. This would be SME's those inside the PO that supported the design, provided the NFR's and ultimately own the rollout plan to the users and training. Any gaps in the PO capabilities would be plugged by IT contractors who would bring their specific skills to the PO through the delivery and test, working for the PO." Your TLA usage is not completely convincing. In my experience the User Acceptance Test is the only one that the customer is involved in writing. Usually it's agreed in advance between both companies. The Operational Readiness Tests are usually written by the developer, and run on customer equipment with the customer witnessing. I'm not sure why you've focused on Non-Functional Requirements, and ignored the functional ones (which is the majority), but that is the high level stuff. The real problems come at low level testing where obscure conditions crop up that no one has thought about at high level. In the case of Horizon it was a complex race condition. These sorts of things can only be tested by the developer, because the details are too low level for the customer to understand. | |||
"The PO must have signed off on the Horizon software and would have definitely been responsible for testing the software to the agreed design ... That's not how software projects work. The end customer doesn't have the skills to know how to test the software, so all of the testing is done by the software company. Obviously the customer asks for a demonstration that the software does the things that are important, and asks for an assertion that adequate testing has been done, but they don't look at any of the low-level test procedures. The PO would provide testing capabilities to accept the the solution, it would be UAT and ORT. This would be SME's those inside the PO that supported the design, provided the NFR's and ultimately own the rollout plan to the users and training. Any gaps in the PO capabilities would be plugged by IT contractors who would bring their specific skills to the PO through the delivery and test, working for the PO. Your TLA usage is not completely convincing. In my experience the User Acceptance Test is the only one that the customer is involved in writing. Usually it's agreed in advance between both companies. The Operational Readiness Tests are usually written by the developer, and run on customer equipment with the customer witnessing. I'm not sure why you've focused on Non-Functional Requirements, and ignored the functional ones (which is the majority), but that is the high level stuff. The real problems come at low level testing where obscure conditions crop up that no one has thought about at high level. In the case of Horizon it was a complex race condition. These sorts of things can only be tested by the developer, because the details are too low level for the customer to understand." The software is built on requirements, not software built to re-sell, huge difference. | |||
| |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. " All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!!" Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. " This is not an excuse for it not to be tested or for it not to have been found. It is a shortfall in the process, which doesn't surprise me after reading about the toxic culture of the PO. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them." To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? | |||
| |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8?" They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them." If the drama was accurate, this happened. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. " I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. | |||
"The CPS said on Wednesday it was involved in 11 cases in which it had prosecuted sub-postmasters for fraud, theft and false accounting involving the Horizon IT system. From none to 11, how many more will emerge? If the very best prosecutors in the country don't stop for a minute and say 'hold the fuck on, something isn't right here' then we've no hope." I agree, it's hard to understand how eminent lawyers, QCs and judges watched a parade of clearly innocent people pass through their courts, yet not suspect something was wrong. Makes you wonder about our judicial system. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been." Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. | |||
"Fujitsu should. It was their junk software . The Horizon Project was originally started by International Computers Limited (ICL) a British computer hardware, computer software and computer services company that operated from 1968 until 2002. The company had an increasingly close relationship with Fujitsu from the early 1980s, culminating in Fujitsu becoming sole shareholder in 1998. ICL was rebranded as Fujitsu in April 2002. " Not 100% true, fujitsu owned icl since the early 80s. It nearly went bust and folded in 2001 but Japan bailed it out and took more control, cut costs and made a lot of reduncies. It was rebranded fujitsu services UK in 2002. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. " Problem is that companies like fujitsu have payment milestones to complete. If something it's ready by a certain date fujitsu won't get paid by the customer or even fined. So stuff is made live without being properly tested and "we'll sort the bugs later" unfortunately this one had severe consequences | |||
| |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. " Typical Consultant response 
There’ll be nuance in this otherwise Fujitsu would be coming out fighting to defend their reputation. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Typical Consultant response
There’ll be nuance in this otherwise Fujitsu would be coming out fighting to defend their reputation."Comes down to money and what the customer pays for and arguments on who bears the cost for change. Fujitsu then ICL got loads of PFI contracts in the late 90s. This works by fujitsu designs and puts in a system using their own money. The customer then pays for it over a 10 years period (like an hp scheme) if 5 years down the line the system is low on storage space it turns into an argument between who pays for more storage. Fujitsu will say you only paid for X amount so you have to pay for more Customer says you told us that would be enough so you pay. While they take time to argue and come to a compromise engineers are fire fighting every day to keep the system up and running. This results in an unstable system and unhappy users and engineers | |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. The misplaced conviction that anything a computer says cannot possibly be wrong. Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed. See how they scramble in the house trying to put wrongs right, it is all be their own design, legislative forms, rules of the governed created that allows the mediocre chosen ones to get away with their diabolical behaviour. Hillsborough, Iraq war inquiry, Grenfell, this scandal all take years giving the guilty their innocence. "Grenfell in isolation, 6.5 years on, Inside Housing estimate that 377,600 people living in high rises with dangerous cladding. However, the magazine estimated that the problem in England was greater than this, suggesting 274,000 high-rise flats house up to 657,000 people were affected. Any comment from parliament. | |||
"The CPS said on Wednesday it was involved in 11 cases in which it had prosecuted sub-postmasters for fraud, theft and false accounting involving the Horizon IT system." Not good news for Keir Starmer, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time. Even if they were all genuine fraud cases, he'll get some blame pinned to him by the press. | |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. The misplaced conviction that anything a computer says cannot possibly be wrong. Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed. See how they scramble in the house trying to put wrongs right, it is all be their own design, legislative forms, rules of the governed created that allows the mediocre chosen ones to get away with their diabolical behaviour. Hillsborough, Iraq war inquiry, Grenfell, this scandal all take years giving the guilty their innocence.
Grenfell in isolation, 6.5 years on, Inside Housing estimate that 377,600 people living in high rises with dangerous cladding. However, the magazine estimated that the problem in England was greater than this, suggesting 274,000 high-rise flats house up to 657,000 people were affected.
Any comment from parliament. "There was an article I read about the same cladding being on a block that was privately owned flats. To get it replaced each resident would have to pay 140k. The flat is unsellable and their home insurance is slightly high | |||
"The CPS said on Wednesday it was involved in 11 cases in which it had prosecuted sub-postmasters for fraud, theft and false accounting involving the Horizon IT system. Not good news for Keir Starmer, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time. Even if they were all genuine fraud cases, he'll get some blame pinned to him by the press." I remember watching pmqs and Boris (to deflect a question) blamed starmer for failing to prosecute jimmy Saville. I didn't think Boris could sink any lower until then | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Typical Consultant response
There’ll be nuance in this otherwise Fujitsu would be coming out fighting to defend their reputation."Fujitsu will say nothing as per the commercial agreement. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Typical Consultant response
There’ll be nuance in this otherwise Fujitsu would be coming out fighting to defend their reputation.
Fujitsu will say nothing as per the commercial agreement.
"While the judicial review cannot compel a corporate response, it can compel named individuals to attend and give answers, can't it? | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Typical Consultant response
There’ll be nuance in this otherwise Fujitsu would be coming out fighting to defend their reputation.
Fujitsu will say nothing as per the commercial agreement.
While the judicial review cannot compel a corporate response, it can compel named individuals to attend and give answers, can't it?"Yes and if that happens it will very interesting in the approach Fujitsu take | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. " Obvious you haven't watched the drama. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"As I can gather, there was a problem with the Horizon system. This led to a number of prosecutions for alleged financial irregularities which were later shown to be wrong. The Post Office continued with prosecutions despite being aware that there was a common defence (ie. that the defendents claimed a faulty system). The Post Office failed to disclose to each defendent these common claims, nor did they sufficiently investigate the potential fault despite their Criminal Investigation Procedures Act obligation to cross disclose and carry out sufficient investigation in line with the two tests (assistance to the defence case or undermining the prosecution). The software was faulty. The investigation process was faulty. The victims have paid out criminal compensation and in some cases paid in liberty as well. Now we are looking at a one off law to reverse these wrongful and appalling convictions. While the victims must be cleared as soon as possible, I am always a bit sceptical of Parliament getting involved in the judicial process. If there is no objection by the prosecution, cannot a blanket action at the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court be concluded in a morning, naming all of the victims and completely quashing their convictions? The use of Parliament in this case would not be an abuse but the next case which is more contentious, may be. Or is it another case of our political classes wanting to ride the bandwagon?" It’s certainly a case of the political class wanting to ride a bandwagon. It’s yet another example of how vacuous and lacking in principle our politicians (of all hues) are. They have been perfectly happy to do nothing about this issue until there was a TV programme about it. It seems like the country is actually being run by ITV’s Drama department. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama." Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me." The very next post. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post." Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. " Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! | |||
| |||
"It’s wrong what happened to all the people involved in the post office scandal, but let’s face it, no one cared 2 weeks ago. Now everyone has seen the tv show they have an opinion. Everyone is about 15 years to late, all these people needed your support years ago. It was all over the papers but no one cared." It started before that. And I doubt those affected would say it's too late - better late than never. It is too late for some though, and that is incredibly sad. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! " Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? | |||
"The CPS said on Wednesday it was involved in 11 cases in which it had prosecuted sub-postmasters for fraud, theft and false accounting involving the Horizon IT system. From none to 11, how many more will emerge? If the very best prosecutors in the country don't stop for a minute and say 'hold the fuck on, something isn't right here' then we've no hope." Apparently up to 99 cases now. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence?" It has more credibility than your assumptions. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions." In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege " A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe." What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier." What it means is that over 900 postmasters were (mostly) wrongly convicted. tbh I'm not clear what point you are making. It's now clear Fujitsu made secret changes to Horizon accounts and The PO response was a blanket cover-up. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier. What it means is that over 900 postmasters were (mostly) wrongly convicted. tbh I'm not clear what point you are making. It's now clear Fujitsu made secret changes to Horizon accounts and The PO response was a blanket cover-up." The words being used are emotive, such as secret changes, and I understand this because of the impact to people lives has been terrible! The bottom line is the PO were asking for undocumented changes from their supplier Fujitsu, they complied and made the changes without going to a formal review. Fujitsu wouldn't know why these changes are being ask for, they would just do them as per the request of the customer. The split of accountability here is the PO knows how the transactions play out and how the processes work to audit, transact and store the data as per their business process, it is what they do, the were being underhand with everyone. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier. What it means is that over 900 postmasters were (mostly) wrongly convicted. tbh I'm not clear what point you are making. It's now clear Fujitsu made secret changes to Horizon accounts and The PO response was a blanket cover-up. The words being used are emotive, such as secret changes, and I understand this because of the impact to people lives has been terrible! The bottom line is the PO were asking for undocumented changes from their supplier Fujitsu, they complied and made the changes without going to a formal review. Fujitsu wouldn't know why these changes are being ask for, they would just do them as per the request of the customer. The split of accountability here is the PO knows how the transactions play out and how the processes work to audit, transact and store the data as per their business process, it is what they do, the were being underhand with everyone. " Not sure if I'm correct here.. Apparently, postmasters were told that only they had access to their systems, but.. others such as managers at the po and Fujitsu could login and alter figures in the postmasters accounts If correct then that's the po fault for lying to the postmasters. Also bugs in the system .. in that horizon's mathematical abities are crap, then that would be Fujitsu's fault. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier. What it means is that over 900 postmasters were (mostly) wrongly convicted. tbh I'm not clear what point you are making. It's now clear Fujitsu made secret changes to Horizon accounts and The PO response was a blanket cover-up. The words being used are emotive, such as secret changes, and I understand this because of the impact to people lives has been terrible! The bottom line is the PO were asking for undocumented changes from their supplier Fujitsu, they complied and made the changes without going to a formal review. Fujitsu wouldn't know why these changes are being ask for, they would just do them as per the request of the customer. The split of accountability here is the PO knows how the transactions play out and how the processes work to audit, transact and store the data as per their business process, it is what they do, the were being underhand with everyone. Not sure if I'm correct here.. Apparently, postmasters were told that only they had access to their systems, but.. others such as managers at the po and Fujitsu could login and alter figures in the postmasters accounts If correct then that's the po fault for lying to the postmasters. Also bugs in the system .. in that horizon's mathematical abities are crap, then that would be Fujitsu's fault. " At no point in the drama was it suggested anyone else other than the sub postmasters and Fujitsu could enter/alter figures. | |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier. What it means is that over 900 postmasters were (mostly) wrongly convicted. tbh I'm not clear what point you are making. It's now clear Fujitsu made secret changes to Horizon accounts and The PO response was a blanket cover-up. The words being used are emotive, such as secret changes, and I understand this because of the impact to people lives has been terrible! The bottom line is the PO were asking for undocumented changes from their supplier Fujitsu, they complied and made the changes without going to a formal review. Fujitsu wouldn't know why these changes are being ask for, they would just do them as per the request of the customer. The split of accountability here is the PO knows how the transactions play out and how the processes work to audit, transact and store the data as per their business process, it is what they do, the were being underhand with everyone. Not sure if I'm correct here.. Apparently, postmasters were told that only they had access to their systems, but.. others such as managers at the po and Fujitsu could login and alter figures in the postmasters accounts If correct then that's the po fault for lying to the postmasters. Also bugs in the system .. in that horizon's mathematical abities are crap, then that would be Fujitsu's fault. At no point in the drama was it suggested anyone else other than the sub postmasters and Fujitsu could enter/alter figures. " It was a documentary on .. oh ek last night or night before . Not on the drama | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don’t know the full technical details but as I understand it, the bug in Horizon was small but cumulative so was easy to miss during various testing cycles and not picked up (clearly) until the software had been running for years. All software has bugs. e.g. Windows has updates periodically to fix issues as they arise. But the updates affect the functional code not your data. As I understand, with Horizon, Fujitsu were changing data (£ balances) to correct errors. That's equivalent to Microsoft getting into your laptop and editing your housekeeping spreadsheets!! Why would Fujitsu change anything unless requested to do so, they would not know if something was right or wrong unless the PO told them. To redress coding errors. So if the code for 1+1 =x returned say 3, they'd want to change it to 2. But what if they incorrectly entered 8? They would not do that without permission, the code once delivered is no longer Fujitsu's and would have been a change request from the PO. Change requests and the changes themselves would be auditable and recorded both by the PO and Fujitsu, if that change existed it meant the PO did know about this problem for a considerable amount of time. I have a feeling (no not fact, no evidence, I don't have THE memo yadda yadda) that POL and Fujitsu were complicit. I think it will be shared blame. I assume Fujitsu ran/maintained the software on behalf of POL? You would have thought when they started seeing an uptick in supposed fraudulent activity, questions would be asked. I guess ultimately they have been. Not at all, Fujitsu are supplying a software service for the PO to conduct "ITS" work. Fujitsu will have no influence on the processes the PO employ to manage and transact. They build what is required, the PO test it works as they wanted it to, the PO are the experts in being a counter service post office, not Fujitsu. Obvious you haven't watched the drama. Can you expand on this, as it stands your comment isn't very helpful to me. The very next post. Okay….. As I have not watched the “drama” you have not read my posts. Fujitsu will not carry out any correction, change or other unless instructed by the client. If they are being asked by the PO to change something they will under the correct authorisation, they do not run the service operations they support it. Did you actually read the post that followed the one you responded to? Your assumptions are simply assumptions and have no value. Watch the series then comment! Are you basing your views on a drama or real life evidence? It has more credibility than your assumptions. In your opinion, not in your experience or knowledege A Fujitsu whistleblower swore under oath that accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. This alone renders the prosecutions unsafe. What does secretly altered mean? And who asks for it to be secretly altered? You will then find your answer..... The PO via non formal methods. This is not uncommon, unknown and protection is written into every contract and overarching MSA, to protect the supplier. What it means is that over 900 postmasters were (mostly) wrongly convicted. tbh I'm not clear what point you are making. It's now clear Fujitsu made secret changes to Horizon accounts and The PO response was a blanket cover-up. The words being used are emotive, such as secret changes, and I understand this because of the impact to people lives has been terrible! The bottom line is the PO were asking for undocumented changes from their supplier Fujitsu, they complied and made the changes without going to a formal review. Fujitsu wouldn't know why these changes are being ask for, they would just do them as per the request of the customer. The split of accountability here is the PO knows how the transactions play out and how the processes work to audit, transact and store the data as per their business process, it is what they do, the were being underhand with everyone. Not sure if I'm correct here.. Apparently, postmasters were told that only they had access to their systems, but.. others such as managers at the po and Fujitsu could login and alter figures in the postmasters accounts If correct then that's the po fault for lying to the postmasters. Also bugs in the system .. in that horizon's mathematical abities are crap, then that would be Fujitsu's fault. At no point in the drama was it suggested anyone else other than the sub postmasters and Fujitsu could enter/alter figures. " I’ve tried to explain and I can’t go around the houses again. A drama will make it easier for you to understand without going into low level detail that confuses and has little benefit to the man in the street. Like this conversation, I will bow out and leave it there. | |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. The misplaced conviction that anything a computer says cannot possibly be wrong. Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed." | |||
 | |||
"I was going to say not a truer word spoken!, why didn't the justice system see something was not right earlier, no let's f..king drag the little man across the hot coals, it bloody stinks!!.... "It stinks from the powerful position the PO have. How can you expect the courts to establish a pattern of random PO prosecutions, in different parts of the country by different judges? Only the PO would have the overall picture.. | |||
"The documentary, the postmasters were interviewed, and one of them said he was shown by someone when he went on a demonstration or traning course I think. Can't remember what night it was on or what it's called. I rember seeing it a few months back. " The post office scandal, panorama? | |||
"I was going to say not a truer word spoken!, why didn't the justice system see something was not right earlier, no let's f..king drag the little man across the hot coals, it bloody stinks!!....
It stinks from the powerful position the PO have. How can you expect the courts to establish a pattern of random PO prosecutions, in different parts of the country by different judges?
Only the PO would have the overall picture.."Did agree most court cases it would be past set president. In the case PO v x the post office wone. So in the next case this would have been used as part of the prosecution. | |||
"The Post Office scandal sums up modern Britain. Incompetent but untouchable and arrogant overlords looting the country and ruining lives. ... Little people who question things get targeted and destroyed. Do you think that those 2 are a modern phenomenon?" It hints at the old boys network, where the people with money and power looked after each other. | |||
| |||
"Private prosecutions are very rare in the UK. After this immensely huge cock up and the damage its done to the reputation of justice in the UK we wouldn't be surprised if private prosecutions get a lot more oversight going forward. It's blatantly obvious there was no oversight here as reasonable doubt should have helped with defending the criminal charges." Totally agree and I like to see the judges that sentenced these people and awarded a prison time looked in to. | |||
"Private prosecutions are very rare in the UK. After this immensely huge cock up and the damage its done to the reputation of justice in the UK we wouldn't be surprised if private prosecutions get a lot more oversight going forward. It's blatantly obvious there was no oversight here as reasonable doubt should have helped with defending the criminal charges. Totally agree and I like to see the judges that sentenced these people and awarded a prison time looked in to." The judges go on evidence and person's plea. In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect)." It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers." Would that not fall foul of slander/libel rules though? | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect)." "It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers." "Would that not fall foul of slander/libel rules though?" No. To prove libel they have to show that the publication caused "serious harm" to the company. At this point, there's no way that the PO could claim that they previously had a good reputation on this matter that was harmed by the TV programme. The TV company's argument would be that they were taking a complex issue and making it understandable to an unsophisticated audience. They would say that even though the PO didn't do that actual thing, they did similar things with the same effects. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that seeing it in a drama does not prove that it did happen. | |||
| |||
| |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers." ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on. | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on. "
When you watch the drama, panorama and all the other sources of info, you realise that the writer has got hold unbelievable drama gold (IE you couldn't make it up). Sadly some people here are just concerned with how things are supposed to be and not what they were.
A fyi horizon came bottom in 7/11 tests for the bid of the post office new system, but were the cheapest. Seems like the PO set themselves up to fail. | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect)." "It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers." "ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on." If course it isn't. Court proceedings are incredibly dull and tedious. If they showed the trial exactly as it happened, people would be switching off before the witnesses even got to speak. They have to cut out the boring bits and just show the meat. If that means simplifying a bit here and there, that's what they'll do. As I said before, to bring a libel charge the PO would have to show "serious harm" to their business. With the current public mood, ITV could show a scene where faceless PO executives chained employees together and urinated on them while laughing, and no court would accept that this had any negative effect on the PO's reputation. | |||
| |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on.
When you watch the drama, panorama and all the other sources of info, you realise that the writer has got hold unbelievable drama gold (IE you couldn't make it up). Sadly some people here are just concerned with how things are supposed to be and not what they were.
A fyi horizon came bottom in 7/11 tests for the bid of the post office new system, but were the cheapest. Seems like the PO set themselves up to fail."You can believe what you like, people have professional dealings in some of the areas being discussed here and are saying as it is, not how people think it should be..... it is like you watching casualty and thinking, they wouldn't do that because of.... however nobody is saying the PO are not guilty and have treated people terribly. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. " Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on.
When you watch the drama, panorama and all the other sources of info, you realise that the writer has got hold unbelievable drama gold (IE you couldn't make it up). Sadly some people here are just concerned with how things are supposed to be and not what they were.
A fyi horizon came bottom in 7/11 tests for the bid of the post office new system, but were the cheapest. Seems like the PO set themselves up to fail.
You can believe what you like, people have professional dealings in some of the areas being discussed here and are saying as it is, not how people think it should be..... it is like you watching casualty and thinking, they wouldn't do that because of.... however nobody is saying the PO are not guilty and have treated people terribly."I disagree. You're saying this is how it should be due to policies and protocols, not belief systems. I, likewise, can say how certain healthcare treatments should occur due to policies and protocols. But I don't, for one moment, imagine that these are followed 100% of the time. Litigation in this case has drawn up evidence that states things have occurred that was proposed as couldn't happen (against Fujitsu horizon support and the PO). IN 2019 the sub postmasters alliance won their case. If, because you have professional dealings in the same or similar vein, you believe certain things cannot happen, then you do not live in the real world. I just hope it is discovered how much accountability Fujitsu are beholden to. Obviously we know the PO is ultimately responsible and accountable. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why "The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. " This space? Might that also be from 2010 to the present? | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why
The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear. "The CPS stated they weren't involved in any cases, then said there was 11, now up to 99. I'm not in the camp of blaming Starmer but the CPS have definitely been lying about their involvement. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why
The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear.
The CPS stated they weren't involved in any cases, then said there was 11, now up to 99.
I'm not in the camp of blaming Starmer but the CPS have definitely been lying about their involvement. "They're all trying to deflect over this debacle, it's a failure of successive governments and the institutions therein.. By far the biggest liars though is the Post Office.. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. This space? Might that also be from 2010 to the present?" It's pre 2010 if we're pointing fingers at govt and PO ministerial posts. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why
The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear.
The CPS stated they weren't involved in any cases, then said there was 11, now up to 99.
I'm not in the camp of blaming Starmer but the CPS have definitely been lying about their involvement. "At over 700 cases we're looking at 10-20%? | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why
The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear.
The CPS stated they weren't involved in any cases, then said there was 11, now up to 99.
I'm not in the camp of blaming Starmer but the CPS have definitely been lying about their involvement.
At over 700 cases we're looking at 10-20%?"Does the % really matter? The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why
The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear.
The CPS stated they weren't involved in any cases, then said there was 11, now up to 99.
I'm not in the camp of blaming Starmer but the CPS have definitely been lying about their involvement.
They're all trying to deflect over this debacle, it's a failure of successive governments and the institutions therein..
By far the biggest liars though is the Post Office.."Of course the PO have been the biggest liars but that doesnt absolve others of blame. | |||
"The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear." The PO have the right to bring private criminal prosecutions without involving the CPS. That doesn't stop the CPS from involving themselves if the evidence comes up as part of another case. If that happened, it's unlikely that SKS would have been involved. The CPS also have the right to "take over" any criminal case brought privately. They often do this to close the case if they believe that it is vexatious. If any of the cases that the CPS prosecuted were "taken over", its very likely that SKS was involved. Cases don't get taken over without discussion at very senior level. | |||
"The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement." They may just have been mistaken. The initial query might just have been responded to with an unthinking "no, the PO do their own prosecutions, we don't get involved". But then someone checked and found that there were some cases. As somebody once said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. Got a sneaky feeling you only want to criticise certain political elements in this scandal. Not sure why
The panorama programme stated the PO had the ability to bypass the police and CPS, so surely it's right to assume SKS is in the clear.
The CPS stated they weren't involved in any cases, then said there was 11, now up to 99.
I'm not in the camp of blaming Starmer but the CPS have definitely been lying about their involvement.
At over 700 cases we're looking at 10-20%?
Does the % really matter?
The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement. "My point was the total number of cases not the percentage as I'm sure it'll change, hence the question mark. It's a ball park figure not a statement of fact. | |||
"Blair Starmer Ed Davey All complicit through their different roles ,and all knew what was happening, yet did nothing . Watch this space. This space? Might that also be from 2010 to the present? It's pre 2010 if we're pointing fingers at govt and PO ministerial posts." Agreed.. | |||
 | |||
"The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement. They may just have been mistaken. The initial query might just have been responded to with an unthinking "no, the PO do their own prosecutions, we don't get involved". But then someone checked and found that there were some cases. As somebody once said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." I personally don't buy that but could be true. | |||
"The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement. They may just have been mistaken. The initial query might just have been responded to with an unthinking "no, the PO do their own prosecutions, we don't get involved". But then someone checked and found that there were some cases. As somebody once said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. I personally don't buy that but could be true. " I don't in this case either.. Another example of covering up and group think to protect the brand regardless of the cost to individuals who were innocent.. | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on.
When you watch the drama, panorama and all the other sources of info, you realise that the writer has got hold unbelievable drama gold (IE you couldn't make it up). Sadly some people here are just concerned with how things are supposed to be and not what they were.
A fyi horizon came bottom in 7/11 tests for the bid of the post office new system, but were the cheapest. Seems like the PO set themselves up to fail.
You can believe what you like, people have professional dealings in some of the areas being discussed here and are saying as it is, not how people think it should be..... it is like you watching casualty and thinking, they wouldn't do that because of.... however nobody is saying the PO are not guilty and have treated people terribly.
I disagree. You're saying this is how it should be due to policies and protocols, not belief systems.
I, likewise, can say how certain healthcare treatments should occur due to policies and protocols. But I don't, for one moment, imagine that these are followed 100% of the time. Litigation in this case has drawn up evidence that states things have occurred that was proposed as couldn't happen (against Fujitsu horizon support and the PO). IN 2019 the sub postmasters alliance won their case.
If, because you have professional dealings in the same or similar vein, you believe certain things cannot happen, then you do not live in the real world.
I just hope it is discovered how much accountability Fujitsu are beholden to. Obviously we know the PO is ultimately responsible and accountable.
"Of course you disagree, you have misunderstood every post so far | |||
"The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement. They may just have been mistaken. The initial query might just have been responded to with an unthinking "no, the PO do their own prosecutions, we don't get involved". But then someone checked and found that there were some cases. As somebody once said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. I personally don't buy that but could be true. I don't in this case either.. Another example of covering up and group think to protect the brand regardless of the cost to individuals who were innocent.." I would expect it was to cover people rather than brand. Parts of the inquiry indicate the PO is / was a toxic place to be, that culture drives these mistakes through fear. I've seen so many large organisations with toxicity at its core, they tend to follow the same road... | |||
"The CPS have clearly lied about any involvement. They may just have been mistaken. The initial query might just have been responded to with an unthinking "no, the PO do their own prosecutions, we don't get involved". But then someone checked and found that there were some cases. As somebody once said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. I personally don't buy that but could be true. I don't in this case either.. Another example of covering up and group think to protect the brand regardless of the cost to individuals who were innocent.. I would expect it was to cover people rather than brand. Parts of the inquiry indicate the PO is / was a toxic place to be, that culture drives these mistakes through fear. I've seen so many large organisations with toxicity at its core, they tend to follow the same road... " Valid point on the brand/people.. | |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on.
When you watch the drama, panorama and all the other sources of info, you realise that the writer has got hold unbelievable drama gold (IE you couldn't make it up). Sadly some people here are just concerned with how things are supposed to be and not what they were.
A fyi horizon came bottom in 7/11 tests for the bid of the post office new system, but were the cheapest. Seems like the PO set themselves up to fail.
You can believe what you like, people have professional dealings in some of the areas being discussed here and are saying as it is, not how people think it should be..... it is like you watching casualty and thinking, they wouldn't do that because of.... however nobody is saying the PO are not guilty and have treated people terribly.
I disagree. You're saying this is how it should be due to policies and protocols, not belief systems.
I, likewise, can say how certain healthcare treatments should occur due to policies and protocols. But I don't, for one moment, imagine that these are followed 100% of the time. Litigation in this case has drawn up evidence that states things have occurred that was proposed as couldn't happen (against Fujitsu horizon support and the PO). IN 2019 the sub postmasters alliance won their case.
If, because you have professional dealings in the same or similar vein, you believe certain things cannot happen, then you do not live in the real world.
I just hope it is discovered how much accountability Fujitsu are beholden to. Obviously we know the PO is ultimately responsible and accountable.
Of course you disagree, you have misunderstood every post so far "Be clearer then. I'll also add I've been contacted by someone who worked for Fujitsu. But in keeping with the rules I cannot discuss content of messages. | |||
| |||
"In the case we saw in the drama, Jo was persuaded by the PO investigators they'd drop the theft charge (it later transpired they had no evidence of theft anyway) for the lesser charge of false accounting (or words to that effect). It's a drama. Big chunks of it are made up in order to tell the bigger story. Maybe that did happen, but just as likely is that it was invented by the writers. ITV lawyers would have pored over the script before release. Some of the social banter may be invented but the legal stuff and court exchanges would be spot-on.
When you watch the drama, panorama and all the other sources of info, you realise that the writer has got hold unbelievable drama gold (IE you couldn't make it up). Sadly some people here are just concerned with how things are supposed to be and not what they were.
A fyi horizon came bottom in 7/11 tests for the bid of the post office new system, but were the cheapest. Seems like the PO set themselves up to fail.
You can believe what you like, people have professional dealings in some of the areas being discussed here and are saying as it is, not how people think it should be..... it is like you watching casualty and thinking, they wouldn't do that because of.... however nobody is saying the PO are not guilty and have treated people terribly.
I disagree. You're saying this is how it should be due to policies and protocols, not belief systems.
I, likewise, can say how certain healthcare treatments should occur due to policies and protocols. But I don't, for one moment, imagine that these are followed 100% of the time. Litigation in this case has drawn up evidence that states things have occurred that was proposed as couldn't happen (against Fujitsu horizon support and the PO). IN 2019 the sub postmasters alliance won their case.
If, because you have professional dealings in the same or similar vein, you believe certain things cannot happen, then you do not live in the real world.
I just hope it is discovered how much accountability Fujitsu are beholden to. Obviously we know the PO is ultimately responsible and accountable.
Of course you disagree, you have misunderstood every post so far
Be clearer then.
I'll also add I've been contacted by someone who worked for Fujitsu. But in keeping with the rules I cannot discuss content of messages."Unless this person was a decision maker on the account at the time or holds a very senior position in Fujitsu today, they only know what they have been told on the rumour mill. If they hold or held a senior position within Fujitsu, I would doubt highly they would talk to you about what they know, or even don't know. | |||
