Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
kestral said:
People give evidence and say "I cannot recal, I can't remember, I'm sorry for what happened"
And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
He had his snout in the PO trough and wasn't prepared to risk compromising that for anything so trivial as going into bat for those he was supposed to be representing. No he didn't play the amnesia cop-out card but he was belligerent and adamant he was on the right side of the fence despite all the evidence now to the contrary. You don't get a free pass just because you answered the questions when others have failed to answer. In the circumstances a rather more contrite manner would have been far more appropriate but instead he decided that aggressively defending his view he was in the right was better. I think we can safely add that approach to the list of things he got badly wrong. And then people complain that they are avoiding telling the truth.
A man comes to the enquiry and actually tells the truth and he is hauled over the coals and vilified.
Is there any wonder people "Cannot recal".
I think a lot of what George Thomson said is the truth and is correct.
He has some balls and refuse to be frightened by a few TV programes and public opinion whipped up by them.
George Thomson 1 Solicitors and Barristers -10 They could not corner him like they have the "I cannot recal" brigade.
Disliking someone does not mean they have not told the truth.
And the bill to the tax payer continues.
Mercdriver said:
Wills2 said:
Paula is that you?
You are kidding aren’t you? Complete trust on any computer system is laughable 
outnumbered said:
Wills2 said:
skwdenyer said:
Just for completeness, do we actually have prima facie evidence that any SPM losses were actually caused by Horizon? That’s not why the convictions are unsafe…
Paula is that you? I'm interested to hear what Gareth Jenkins says on this subject.
If there is one settled fact about this whole debacle it's that Horizon wasn't fit for purpose and was riddled with 100s of bugs from day one, we have that in written evidence from the development team that built it, we have the Callendar Square bug and the Dalmellington bug as examples of how huge "losses" could be created in a matter of seconds on one transaction.
Jenkins is in real trouble don't presume he'll be a cooperative witness.
SS also said it would be near impossible to do a full forensic examination because there were so many different versions of Horizon out there being used.
That doesn’t surprise me at all, in the early 90s I worked for a company that wrote and supplied management database systems used by hospital departments. One of my jobs as support engineer was to update the software on a visit.
This was a nightmare task because the software was constantly being tweaked, bugs fixed, new items added that a location may have requested etc.
One our office system was the latest up to date version that I took my back ups from, and regularly updated them. I then updated sites from that, but instantly they could be out of date. The only sites on the same versions would be which ever had been updated by that set of discs.
Also, there was the risk of a software engineer visiting a site to fix an issue there and then. Has he brought the changes back to the office copy? If I update their system will I remove a local fix?
It was a massive headache.
That doesn’t surprise me at all, in the early 90s I worked for a company that wrote and supplied management database systems used by hospital departments. One of my jobs as support engineer was to update the software on a visit.
This was a nightmare task because the software was constantly being tweaked, bugs fixed, new items added that a location may have requested etc.
One our office system was the latest up to date version that I took my back ups from, and regularly updated them. I then updated sites from that, but instantly they could be out of date. The only sites on the same versions would be which ever had been updated by that set of discs.
Also, there was the risk of a software engineer visiting a site to fix an issue there and then. Has he brought the changes back to the office copy? If I update their system will I remove a local fix?
It was a massive headache.
Wills2 said:
I'm often stunned by how little research people do before giving us all the benefit of their analysis, even at this stage with all the detail available to anyone that cared to look, but you even manage to misread the question he posed, he's questioning the basis that any losses were sustained by bugs in the system not asking what the total amount was.
If there is one settled fact about this whole debacle it's that Horizon wasn't fit for purpose and was riddled with 100s of bugs from day one, we have that in written evidence from the development team that built it, we have the Callendar Square bug and the Dalmellington bug as examples of how huge "losses" could be created in a matter of seconds on one transaction.
Jenkins is in real trouble don't presume he'll be a cooperative witness.
I've done plenty of research. My view is this whole scandal is all about terrible corporate government and ethics, and less about buggy software.If there is one settled fact about this whole debacle it's that Horizon wasn't fit for purpose and was riddled with 100s of bugs from day one, we have that in written evidence from the development team that built it, we have the Callendar Square bug and the Dalmellington bug as examples of how huge "losses" could be created in a matter of seconds on one transaction.
Jenkins is in real trouble don't presume he'll be a cooperative witness.
outnumbered said:
I've done plenty of research. My view is this whole scandal is all about terrible corporate government and ethics, and less about buggy software.
Jenkins is in trouble because of his court testimony, not because he wrote s
t software. The issues are mainly revolving around the legal system and PO in terms of why innocent people were prosecuted, convicted or spent their lives trying to reconcile a s
t technical system even when not prosecuted. Fujitsu themselves are also in trouble for the way they handled technical failures and issues.
It's an enormous case that covers every aspect of what occured, the legal profession has been proven corrupt and not fit for purpose. Corporate governance has been proven as corrupt and not fit for purpose. The entire PO structure has been proven as not fit for purpose.
It’s an example of why culture is so important. Of why people need to be psychologicallh safe at work. And why creating an organisation that’s open to criticism is so important if you want it to perform well. I am sure some people, at some times, in some parts of the post office or Fujitsu wanted to speak up and say what was happening was wrong. It seems nobody, or maybe few, did. There’s some hints that those that did were excluded, too (the ‘shut out of the board room’ stuff).
People have weird ideas about leadership and about loyalty. They think that character traits which actually make poorer leaders make better leaders. They think loyalty is unquestioning obeyance, not usefully delivered criticism.
Individuals in large organisations aren’t working to get the best outcome for the organisation. That’s different from in a small organisation, when each individual can see a clear connection between their performance and that of the organisation. That’s motivating and powerful. But in a big organistaion, your individual contribution is so diluted that it becomes very hard to connect to the outcomes for the whole company. So, you no longer work to get the best outcome for the business. You optimise for something else. One of more of things like: your career progress, minimising the work you have to do, making yourself look better than colleagues, avoiding change (hard work), satisfying your boss, whatever. That’s how st like this happens.
People have weird ideas about leadership and about loyalty. They think that character traits which actually make poorer leaders make better leaders. They think loyalty is unquestioning obeyance, not usefully delivered criticism.
Individuals in large organisations aren’t working to get the best outcome for the organisation. That’s different from in a small organisation, when each individual can see a clear connection between their performance and that of the organisation. That’s motivating and powerful. But in a big organistaion, your individual contribution is so diluted that it becomes very hard to connect to the outcomes for the whole company. So, you no longer work to get the best outcome for the business. You optimise for something else. One of more of things like: your career progress, minimising the work you have to do, making yourself look better than colleagues, avoiding change (hard work), satisfying your boss, whatever. That’s how s
t like this happens.Edited by PlywoodPascal on Sunday 23 June 10:32
Wills2 said:
Mercdriver said:
Wills2 said:
Paula is that you?
You are kidding aren’t you? Complete trust on any computer system is laughable We - and all the experts - can say (a) Horizon had bugs; (b) remote access allowed changes to be made without SPMs knowing; (c) some known bugs could be linked to balancing issues; and so on. But can we say “this SPM’s ‘loss’ was categorically caused by Horizon?”
If we can’t; if that has never been actually demonstrated, then those who believe all SPMs with losses are guilty will not be dissuaded from their view, whether we like it or not.
That’s all. It was a narrow question relevant primarily to the NFSP witness - however much his failure to support *all* members was scandalous and morally bankrupt, are we in a position to categorically (with proper evidence) state he was wrong to hold his apparent belief that SPMs were more likely than not to be guilty?
Now, it seems the answer is not only no, but that there will never be an answer. Which is what it is. But that means many people may continue to believe all (or most) affected SPMs are actually guilty. Which seems a poor outcome, regardless of anything else.
skwdenyer said:
I wasn’t questioning that premise. I was asking whether there was now actual evidence of a particular loss or set of losses being attributable to Horizon.
We - and all the experts - can say (a) Horizon had bugs; (b) remote access allowed changes to be made without SPMs knowing; (c) some known bugs could be linked to balancing issues; and so on. But can we say “this SPM’s ‘loss’ was categorically caused by Horizon?”
If we can’t; if that has never been actually demonstrated, then those who believe all SPMs with losses are guilty will not be dissuaded from their view, whether we like it or not.
That’s all. It was a narrow question relevant primarily to the NFSP witness - however much his failure to support *all* members was scandalous and morally bankrupt, are we in a position to categorically (with proper evidence) state he was wrong to hold his apparent belief that SPMs were more likely than not to be guilty?
Now, it seems the answer is not only no, but that there will never be an answer. Which is what it is. But that means many people may continue to believe all (or most) affected SPMs are actually guilty. Which seems a poor outcome, regardless of anything else.
Are you deliberately being stupid?We - and all the experts - can say (a) Horizon had bugs; (b) remote access allowed changes to be made without SPMs knowing; (c) some known bugs could be linked to balancing issues; and so on. But can we say “this SPM’s ‘loss’ was categorically caused by Horizon?”
If we can’t; if that has never been actually demonstrated, then those who believe all SPMs with losses are guilty will not be dissuaded from their view, whether we like it or not.
That’s all. It was a narrow question relevant primarily to the NFSP witness - however much his failure to support *all* members was scandalous and morally bankrupt, are we in a position to categorically (with proper evidence) state he was wrong to hold his apparent belief that SPMs were more likely than not to be guilty?
Now, it seems the answer is not only no, but that there will never be an answer. Which is what it is. But that means many people may continue to believe all (or most) affected SPMs are actually guilty. Which seems a poor outcome, regardless of anything else.
There has been huge amounts of detail now in the open.
Horizon created ficticious losses.
SPM were prosecuted for steeling money that never existed.
SPM put their own money in to cover ficticious loses.
The PO banked those ficticious losses, by siezing the SPM own money via the courts.
732NM said:
Are you deliberately being stupid?
There has been huge amounts of detail now in the open.
Horizon created ficticious losses.
SPM were prosecuted for steeling money that never existed.
SPM put their own money in to cover ficticious loses.
The PO banked those ficticious losses, by siezing the SPM own money via the courts.
And used it to pay the POL execs' bonuses?There has been huge amounts of detail now in the open.
Horizon created ficticious losses.
SPM were prosecuted for steeling money that never existed.
SPM put their own money in to cover ficticious loses.
The PO banked those ficticious losses, by siezing the SPM own money via the courts.
When they finished business for the day would the “system” have given a figure for that days business.
When they logged on next morning if the figure was different that would prove somebody was tinkering with their account.
Or is it not so simple?
I would find it difficult to admit stealing in court if I knew it was wrong, easy to say I suppose difficult to not be bullied by the PO “managers” I use that term loosely!
When they logged on next morning if the figure was different that would prove somebody was tinkering with their account.
Or is it not so simple?
I would find it difficult to admit stealing in court if I knew it was wrong, easy to say I suppose difficult to not be bullied by the PO “managers” I use that term loosely!
Mercdriver said:
When they finished business for the day would the “system” have given a figure for that days business.
When they logged on next morning if the figure was different that would prove somebody was tinkering with their account.
Or is it not so simple?
I would find it difficult to admit stealing in court if I knew it was wrong, easy to say I suppose difficult to not be bullied by the PO “managers” I use that term loosely!
PO says it's not possible to 'externally tinker'. Expert Witness says that. SPM would say they, wouldn't he/she - computer system is correct - the law says so.When they logged on next morning if the figure was different that would prove somebody was tinkering with their account.
Or is it not so simple?
I would find it difficult to admit stealing in court if I knew it was wrong, easy to say I suppose difficult to not be bullied by the PO “managers” I use that term loosely!
ETA
And if you pay it back and admit the lesser charge of False Accounting then you won't go to jail.
outnumbered said:
I've done plenty of research. My view is this whole scandal is all about terrible corporate government and ethics, and less about buggy software.
And you're entitled to it however misguided it is. The genesis IS the system everything flows from that (the cover up and criminal conspiracy)
Blib said:
Plus, the Thompson run union abandoned the SPMs to their fate.
Och, literally billions of transactions that were correct, the system was systemically accurate, after all. How would Bolshy George be expected to worry about a few of his members - especially when he suspected they were on the fiddle anyway?ETA
Unless this allegation is true (in the article I linked a couple of days ago)?
DanQ
14th September 2023 6:48 pm
User ID: 1220540
Of course, one of the ways a sub-postmaster could avoid prison, wasn't by reading the manual, it was by being on the NFSP committee!
Susan Edgar, a non-executive director at the NFSP since 2017, had a £68,000 unexplained shortfall in 2017 at her branch in north-east England, which was written off by the Post Office in 2020 following pressure from the NFSP.
Last Updated: 4 hrs ago
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Sunday 23 June 17:14
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff