Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Wills2 said:
732NM said:
Are you deliberately being stupid?
Yes, he has form for it. Anyhow, the Horizon Issues judgement deals with the issue of audit data at para 905 onwards, and the Helen Rose report deals with a very specific instance of a transaction that went awry which was exposed only by examining the audit data (which POL had no access to, it seems, and in any case never looked at).
So the answer to my question is, yes, there are specific cases where the audit data supports the contention that Horizon caused a problem.
That being so, I'd say the questioning of Mr Thompson was pretty poor TBH, because it didn't usefully challenge him on why he didn't change his position as and when certain facts came to light. That would have been not only instructive for us, but might go further to the heart of the relationship between him and POL.
skwdenyer said:
Wills2 said:
732NM said:
Are you deliberately being stupid?
Yes, he has form for it. Anyhow, the Horizon Issues judgement deals with the issue of audit data at para 905 onwards, and the Helen Rose report deals with a very specific instance of a transaction that went awry which was exposed only by examining the audit data (which POL had no access to, it seems, and in any case never looked at).
So the answer to my question is, yes, there are specific cases where the audit data supports the contention that Horizon caused a problem.
That being so, I'd say the questioning of Mr Thompson was pretty poor TBH, because it didn't usefully challenge him on why he didn't change his position as and when certain facts came to light. That would have been not only instructive for us, but might go further to the heart of the relationship between him and POL.
simon_harris said:
His answer was that he was working to ensure the franchises got the best deal possible to earn money.
Oh and there were plenty that stole anyway before horizon…
Yes, I heard all of that, and have commented on it above. What I obviously missed was the specific question: when you were faced with actual evidence of Horizon causing unequivocally identifiable issues, what did you do?Oh and there were plenty that stole anyway before horizon…
skwdenyer said:
Yes, I heard all of that, and have commented on it above. What I obviously missed was the specific question: when you were faced with actual evidence of Horizon causing unequivocally identifiable issues, what did you do?
He seems to have fallen back to the view that the issues were so rare that anyone who identified them or went to prison or killed themselves because of them were so small a minority that they were literally mistaken.The problem here was that he’s a thick but arrogant man without the ability to understand data, statistics or the law.
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.
It's actually about both. The gap between the supposed capability of the software and its actual capability exposed the culture within both the PO and Fujitsu. All software has bugs of one sort or another but there are red lines you don't cross with financial software in respect of account access, getting the numbers right and audit trails. I don't know if the exact technical details of the bugs will ever see the light of day but from what we've heard at a generic level this system should not have been in service and it certainly should not have been assumed to be infallible.skwdenyer said:
simon_harris said:
His answer was that he was working to ensure the franchises got the best deal possible to earn money.
Oh and there were plenty that stole anyway before horizon…
Yes, I heard all of that, and have commented on it above. What I obviously missed was the specific question: when you were faced with actual evidence of Horizon causing unequivocally identifiable issues, what did you do?Oh and there were plenty that stole anyway before horizon…
siremoon said:
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.
It's actually about both. The gap between the supposed capability of the software and its actual capability exposed the culture within both the PO and Fujitsu. All software has bugs of one sort or another but there are red lines you don't cross with financial software in respect of account access, getting the numbers right and audit trails. I don't know if the exact technical details of the bugs will ever see the light of day but from what we've heard at a generic level this system should not have been in service and it certainly should not have been assumed to be infallible.outnumbered said:
Yes, that's fair. My reason for saying it's not just bugs at issue is that it's clear that the support functions and training provided were also very poor, so SPMRs might have been suspected of "losses" just by using the system incorrectly.
I was all ready to see and hear Mr Jenkins today!Little anecdote to pass the time if I may?
From my own experience way back in the mid 80's I found even very basic software errors could cause potentially serious issues.
1st Edition of Sage accounts had nominal codes for products i.e. fuel for vans etc Code101...........Red diesel 102.
Whilst doing a VAT return I could see something wasn't right...I had inadevertently put something in with the wrong code........most other products it would not really have mattered but back in the day Red was 0% VAT & White was 15% IIRC so when doing a VAT return it mattered to me... not least as to being poentially prosecuted by Her Maj's Govt for Taxes.
No problem I thought, just transfer from 1 to the other......so I debited from 1 and credited to the other......run the VAT return again (which took about an hour to print off in them days....lo and behold the error had doubled..........stupid me must have done it the wrong way round so did it all again but this time I checked before printing it off.........blow me down it had double again and it is now 12pm!!!!!
Next day rang Sage helpline..........nope you are doing it wrong they tell me many times and I insisit I am not......few hours later I get a call from a software engineer...I was right all along...we have sold 000's of this package and you are the 1st person to have noticed it.......little old me a small construction contractor whodathunkit?
Would HMRC believed me or the Sage if push came to shove? I know what I think..see you tomorrow peeps.
Mercdriver said:
You are kidding aren’t you? Complete trust on any computer system is laughable
The prosecution relied on the stated "fact" that there wasn't a back door that allowed transactions to be inserted remotely.There was a back door, it wasn't audited, and the fact of this was witheld from the defence. To go ahead and prosecute people based on the balances is criminal.
skwdenyer said:
Whoa. I’m not defending Horizon or POL! I’m asking whether anyone has actually managed to follow the trail fully to show how a loss occurred.
The system allowed changes to be made to transactions and balances remotely, so how would it be possible even in theory to produce what you are asking for?Ken_Code said:
skwdenyer said:
Whoa. I’m not defending Horizon or POL! I’m asking whether anyone has actually managed to follow the trail fully to show how a loss occurred.
The system allowed changes to be made to transactions and balances remotely, so how would it be possible even in theory to produce what you are asking for?CharlesElliott said:
skwdenyer said:
OK, I must have missed it; had it on in the background.
The difference with Crown Offices was that the postmasters were employees and not independent businesses. In general, the PO wrote off losses in crown post offices.If not why were sub postmasters treated differently? Maybe just because they could be bullied into handing over tens of thousands of life savings ultimately for it to end up in the POL profit column. Which leads to the old adage, follow the money.
Ken_Code said:
Mercdriver said:
You are kidding aren’t you? Complete trust on any computer system is laughable
The prosecution relied on the stated "fact" that there wasn't a back door that allowed transactions to be inserted remotely.There was a back door, it wasn't audited, and the fact of this was witheld from the defence. To go ahead and prosecute people based on the balances is criminal.
This created a very significant hurdle for defendants to overcome.
FiF said:
CharlesElliott said:
skwdenyer said:
OK, I must have missed it; had it on in the background.
The difference with Crown Offices was that the postmasters were employees and not independent businesses. In general, the PO wrote off losses in crown post offices.If not why were sub postmasters treated differently? Maybe just because they could be bullied into handing over tens of thousands of life savings ultimately for it to end up in the POL profit column. Which leads to the old adage, follow the money.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff