Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Bonefish Blues said:
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.
LimmerickLad said:
Bonefish Blues said:
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.
skwdenyer said:
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.
Just watched the sad story of Zulu delta, the chinook helicopter that crashed full of top special forces and special branch.
Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
Mercdriver said:
Just watched the sad story of Zulu delta, the chinook helicopter that crashed full of top special forces and special branch.
Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
Cheers. I've been considering watching that. I heard that you need to see both to get the full picture that it's actually an intriguing story. By that I guess I mean that the first episode isn't that interesting other than as a set-up. Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
Randy Winkman said:
Mercdriver said:
Just watched the sad story of Zulu delta, the chinook helicopter that crashed full of top special forces and special branch.
Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
Cheers. I've been considering watching that. I heard that you need to see both to get the full picture that it's actually an intriguing story. By that I guess I mean that the first episode isn't that interesting other than as a set-up. Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
Speed 3 said:
It's a very similar story of the Establishment doing all it could to divert blame when it was faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary and protecting "Bigger National Interests". In that case the easy path was to blame the pilots who died in the aircraft that the Establishment themselves had officially classified as unairworthy (effectively a test prototype).
That was another story championed by Computer Weekly.In the early days of ECU reflashing, i lost an engine because the software was buggered up.
The ECU used two ignition tables and it switched between them depending on the level of engine knock detected.
One ignition table was for high octane fuel, the other was for low octane fuel, with more ignition advance in the high octane table.
When the ECU noticed activity on the knock sensor, it switched to the low octane map with less ignition advance to protect the engine.
Only the software engineers at the reflash company screwed up, they got the algorithm backwards, so when it sensed some knock sensor noise, it switched from the low ignition advance table to the high ignition advance table. Cue detonation and knocked out big ends.
The joys of being an early adopter.
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/phase-...
Four days of Gareth.
I wonder if he will be sleeping well tonight. . .
Four days of Gareth.
I wonder if he will be sleeping well tonight. . .
Mercdriver said:
Just watched the sad story of Zulu delta, the chinook helicopter that crashed full of top special forces and special branch.
Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
That's a really good programme, but shocking at the same time, it makes you detest the system we live under. Eventually the RAF insisted the aircraft was OK and blamed the pilots.
The pilots were not happy with the mark2 following upgrades including software. The captain asked to use a mark1 but was refused.
After many years of investigation the decision by a committee was it was all about software and protecting the RAF and Boeing, ahem, where have we heard that before?
Computers are infallible, not
The decision in the first place was baffling considering who was on the flight.
Stussy said:
I’d imagine it was used in this sense
distinguished
adjective
very successful, authoritative, and commanding great respect.
Yes, it's a common job title in tech companies for the most senior technical (as opposed to managerial) people. One of my previous employers had 30-40,000 engineering staff, of which maybe a couple of hundred got to "Distinguished Engineer" level.distinguished
adjective
very successful, authoritative, and commanding great respect.
Short Grain said:
'kin Hell, made a 5th witness statement, yesterday, with 3 pages of corrections to his earlier witness statements! Has he decided to sack off previous 'lies' economies of truth? This could be good! And we have Mr Beer asking the questions! 
1st impression I know but seems a "genuine" type of guy.......... unlike my 1st impressions of most of the POL & solicitors.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff