Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
732NM said:
Maxdecel said:
No, not that computer, this one 
Poor chap is simply misunderstood.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
That's insane. Poor chap is simply misunderstood.https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
Maxdecel said:
No, not that computer, this one Poor chap is simply misunderstood.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
At the risk of going against the flow, I'm not sure.... Poor chap is simply misunderstood.https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
The Police and Criminal Evidence at the time includes some very similar wording / structure that this statement essentially mirrors. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
"In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown—
(a)that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer; ,
(b)that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents ; and
(c)that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under subsection (2) below are satisfied."
Now compare to his statement:
"There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate because of the improper use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and belief at all material times, the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was not operating properly, or was out of operation, was not such as to affect the information held on it. I hold a responsible position in relation to the working of the computer."
Pretty similar no?
Edited by lambosagogo on Friday 28th June 08:00
lambosagogo said:
At the risk of going against the flow, I'm not sure....
The Police and Criminal Evidence at the time includes some very similar wording / structure that this statement essentially mirrors. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
"In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown—
(a)that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer; ,
(b)that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents ; and
(c)that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under subsection (2) below are satisfied."
Now compare to his statement:
"There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate because of the improper use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and belief at all material times, the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was not operating properly, or was out of operation, was not such as to affect the information held on it. I hold a responsible position in relation to the working of the computer."
Pretty similar no?
I agree. I'm in IT and would never have referred to a platform/complex system like Horizon as "the computer". It's odd wording but the legislation ofte lags technology by some margin.The Police and Criminal Evidence at the time includes some very similar wording / structure that this statement essentially mirrors. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
"In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown—
(a)that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer; ,
(b)that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents ; and
(c)that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under subsection (2) below are satisfied."
Now compare to his statement:
"There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate because of the improper use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and belief at all material times, the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was not operating properly, or was out of operation, was not such as to affect the information held on it. I hold a responsible position in relation to the working of the computer."
Pretty similar no?
Edited by lambosagogo on Friday 28th June 08:00
vaud said:
I agree. I'm in IT and would never have referred to a platform/complex system like Horizon as "the computer". It's odd wording but the legislation ofte lags technology by some margin.
Yes. It seemed obvious to me that paragraph was just some boilerplate stuff bunged in by the lawyers, as it didn't really fit any other way.Bonefish Blues said:
732NM said:
Maxdecel said:
No, not that computer, this one Poor chap is simply misunderstood.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
That's insane. Poor chap is simply misunderstood.https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
sir humphrey appleby said:
Bonefish Blues said:
732NM said:
Maxdecel said:
No, not that computer, this one Poor chap is simply misunderstood.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
That's insane. Poor chap is simply misunderstood.https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
Bonefish Blues said:
sir humphrey appleby said:
Bonefish Blues said:
732NM said:
Maxdecel said:
No, not that computer, this one Poor chap is simply misunderstood.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
That's insane. Poor chap is simply misunderstood.https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
Seema Misra was sitting next to Flora Page yesterday, so I imagine that we'll be treated to Ms Page's full gamut of disdainful facial expressions when addressing Jenkins this morning.
I wonder if they'll all just spend some time having a pop at him, or try to elucidate a bit more about how much the PO and other lawyers were really responsible for the situation he ended up in, which I think would be more valuable.
Given he's already said a few times he doesn't agree that Horizon is as flawed as has been portrayed, perhaps that's something else they'll ask him about, as obviously public opinion is totally against that viewpoint.
I wonder if they'll all just spend some time having a pop at him, or try to elucidate a bit more about how much the PO and other lawyers were really responsible for the situation he ended up in, which I think would be more valuable.
Given he's already said a few times he doesn't agree that Horizon is as flawed as has been portrayed, perhaps that's something else they'll ask him about, as obviously public opinion is totally against that viewpoint.
Edited by outnumbered on Friday 28th June 09:29
LimmerickLad said:
Bonefish Blues said:
sir humphrey appleby said:
Bonefish Blues said:
732NM said:
Maxdecel said:
No, not that computer, this one Poor chap is simply misunderstood.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
That's insane. Poor chap is simply misunderstood.https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366590300/Expe...
outnumbered said:
Yes. It seemed obvious to me that paragraph was just some boilerplate stuff bunged in by the lawyers, as it didn't really fit any other way.
Yeah, for me it's clearly a direct response to the actual wording in the act and not something he wrote himself. So it's therefore surprising that the KC made a big fuss about it. The text clearly doesn't refer to Horizon.lambosagogo said:
outnumbered said:
Yes. It seemed obvious to me that paragraph was just some boilerplate stuff bunged in by the lawyers, as it didn't really fit any other way.
Yeah, for me it's clearly a direct response to the actual wording in the act and not something he wrote himself. So it's therefore surprising that the KC made a big fuss about it. The text clearly doesn't refer to Horizon.LimmerickLad said:
Funny how people see things differently.....I saw lots a jabs but no knockout blows.
Softening him up maybe? 
He didn't look particularly comfortable when referred to as a 'Company Man', which is important in Japanese culture, the Company is all important, over and above your own 'wellbeing'. He certainly defends Horizon and Fujitsu. IMHO he's either naïve in the extreme, or he's more calculating and using his naivety as a shield! I don't think he's stupid, and therefore he should have been asking more questions, and his "I can see that now, should've, would've, could've, I didn't know!" is starting to grate on me!
Plus, his nose hair appears to have become part of his moustache, being white you can see it grows out of his nostrils and into his 'tache, and it's distracting me! Once seen, never unseen! Sorry
We are not really getting to the motivation behind his approach are we? Why was he so seemingly uninterested in anything other than the pure technical problem in front of him.
really does not feel like we are learning anything new here, POL were a bunch of
s, GJ was a techy and disinterested in anything beyond the system itself, the lawyers were a bunch of s, all this we already knew.
really does not feel like we are learning anything new here, POL were a bunch of
s, GJ was a techy and disinterested in anything beyond the system itself, the lawyers were a bunch of s, all this we already knew.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff