Mr Bates vs The Post Office

[SydneyBridge]

The agreed/allowed error ratio with Horizon was 0.03% of transactions I believe. Small percentage but a lot of transactions

[Mercdriver]

How on earth can a law be passed to state that computers are taken by law as being correct without positive proof by other means.

Boeing, British airways, Birmingham airport ATC etc all have had problems with their software.

[732NM]

Mercdriver said:

How on earth can a law be passed to state that computers are taken by law as being correct without positive proof by other means.

Boeing, British airways, Birmingham airport ATC etc all have had problems with their software.

How?

MP's are morons.

That's how.

[Bonefish Blues]

Mercdriver said:

How on earth can a law be passed to state that computers are taken by law as being correct without positive proof by other means.

Boeing, British airways, Birmingham airport ATC etc all have had problems with their software.

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

[732NM]

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

MP's have to vote on a bill to repeal a law, the Law Commission only make recommendations.

[Bonefish Blues]

732NM said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

MP's have to vote on a bill to repeal a law, the Law Commission only make recommendations.

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

[732NM]

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

It really isn't.

MP's should do their job properly and understand what they are voting through.

[Bonefish Blues]

732NM said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

It really isn't.

MP's should do their job properly and understand what they are voting through.

OK thanks, I'm once again grateful for the insight.

[Boringvolvodriver]

732NM said:

It really isn't.

MP's should do their job properly and understand what they are voting through.

If you read a book by Ian Dunt about politics you will be as surprised as I was as to how bad MPS are at actually looking at the laws they are proposing and drafting. It tends to be the HOL who have the experience and expertise to properly review and assess the impacts.

[CHLEMCBC]

Boringvolvodriver said:

If you read a book by Ian Dunt about politics you will be as surprised as I was as to how bad MPS are at actually looking at the laws they are proposing and drafting. It tends to be the HOL who have the experience and expertise to properly review and assess the impacts.

That unelected house that republicans are always rubbishing and trying to get rid of? Whodathunkit?

[skwdenyer]

Bonefish Blues said:

732NM said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

MP's have to vote on a bill to repeal a law, the Law Commission only make recommendations.

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

The repeal was, AFAIK, contained within primary legislation. It would therefore be correct that a law was indeed passed to create the current situation.

[Bonefish Blues]

skwdenyer said:

Bonefish Blues said:

732NM said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

MP's have to vote on a bill to repeal a law, the Law Commission only make recommendations.

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

The repeal was, AFAIK, contained within primary legislation. It would therefore be correct that a law was indeed passed to create the current situation.

Mercdriver said in the post I responded to:

'How on earth can a law be passed to state that computers are taken by law as being correct without positive proof by other means.'

A law wasn't passed to state that, that's what I was explaining

[skwdenyer]

Bonefish Blues said:

skwdenyer said:

Bonefish Blues said:

732NM said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

MP's have to vote on a bill to repeal a law, the Law Commission only make recommendations.

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

The repeal was, AFAIK, contained within primary legislation. It would therefore be correct that a law was indeed passed to create the current situation.

Mercdriver said in the post I responded to:

'How on earth can a law be passed to state that computers are taken by law as being correct without positive proof by other means.'

A law wasn't passed to state that, that's what I was explaining

Indeed. But this is a rather semantic distinction. What actually happened was that a law was passed that de facto said “the requirement that computer be shown to be working properly shall be repealed.” Unfortunately, as in so much of our legislation, what it actually said was under a hearing titled something like “Repeals” and just listed the clause to be repealed - easily missed.

[Bonefish Blues]

skwdenyer said:

Bonefish Blues said:

skwdenyer said:

Bonefish Blues said:

732NM said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It wasn't a law passed, it's a matter of Common Law, guided by the Law Commission that led to the repeal of PACE s69 in 1999, which contained the requirement for the computer to be proved by the Prosecution to be operating correctly.

MP's have to vote on a bill to repeal a law, the Law Commission only make recommendations.

It wasn't a law passed, I was explaining how it came about to the poster. It was a bit more nuanced than 'MPs are morons'

The repeal was, AFAIK, contained within primary legislation. It would therefore be correct that a law was indeed passed to create the current situation.

Mercdriver said in the post I responded to:

'How on earth can a law be passed to state that computers are taken by law as being correct without positive proof by other means.'

A law wasn't passed to state that, that's what I was explaining

Indeed. But this is a rather semantic distinction. What actually happened was that a law was passed that de facto said “the requirement that computer be shown to be working properly shall be repealed.” Unfortunately, as in so much of our legislation, what it actually said was under a hearing titled something like “Repeals” and just listed the clause to be repealed - easily missed.

It wasn't 'missed' so much as a positive act to give effect to the Law Commission's recommendations aiui - it was the Law Commission who erred in this, given the benefit of hindsight (although of course the HofC has primacy and is accountable) and the common law did the rest.

[Mercdriver]

Thanks for explaining, much appreciated. I just cannot understand how people could tell lies which could be proved subsequently in court and not protect themself from being charged surely self preservation comes before protecting the companies name. Did they think the company would protect them from prosecution, cannot see PV and all protecting their employees when found out.

I think I would have had to get out of that toxic environment .

[siremoon]

LimmerickLad said:

I'm probably getting way out of my depth here so apologies if this doesn't make sense:


IIRC a lot of the dancing on the head of a pin was more about was Horizon "systemically flawed" and not about whether it was "fundamentally flawed"?

Whilst all the damage done to many SPM's is 100% unnacceptable and tragic and heads should roll for it, are they not saying that, given that 99.999% of transactions are fine and accepting the system has some "fundamental flaws" (i.e. faults & weaknesses), but the system is not "systemically flawed" because it works fine 99.999% of the time on millions of transaction, however it was what happened (or didn't) after these "flaws" were found that is the real problem.

Imo the system was systemically flawed because it allowed unaudited (or inadequately audited) changes to the accounts via a back door. That back door wasn't a bug, it was a deliberately implemented feature. The bugs related to the incorrect calculation of the numbers brought that systemic flaw into play because the back door was used in an attempt to hide the effect of the bugs without the knowledge of one set of key stake holders ie the SPMs. The number of accounting bugs and the use of the back door to manipulate the consequences of those bugs created the conditions for what happened subsequently.

The very fact that the PO and Fujitsu consistently lied about the existence of the back door tells you they knew it wasn't something that should exist in the form it did in a system of this nature.

Edited by siremoon on Sunday 30th June 08:07

[Bonefish Blues]

siremoon said:

LimmerickLad said:

I'm probably getting way out of my depth here so apologies if this doesn't make sense:


IIRC a lot of the dancing on the head of a pin was more about was Horizon "systemically flawed" and not about whether it was "fundamentally flawed"?

Whilst all the damage done to many SPM's is 100% unnacceptable and tragic and heads should roll for it, are they not saying that, given that 99.999% of transactions are fine and accepting the system has some "fundamental flaws" (i.e. faults & weaknesses), but the system is not "systemically flawed" because it works fine 99.999% of the time on millions of transaction, however it was what happened (or didn't) after these "flaws" were found that is the real problem.

Imo the system was systemically flawed because it allowed unaudited (or inadequately audited) changes to the accounts via a back door. That back door wasn't a bug, it was a deliberately implemented feature. The bugs related to the incorrect calculation of the numbers brought that systemic flaw into play because the back door was used in an attempt to hide the effect of the bugs without the knowledge of one set of key stake holders ie the SPMs. The number of accounting bugs and the use of the back door to manipulate the consequences of those bugs created the conditions for what happened subsequently.

The very fact that the PO and Fujitsu consistently lied about the existence of the back door tells you they knew it wasn't something that should exist in the form it did in a system of this nature.

Edited by siremoon on Sunday 30th June 08:07

I remember very early thread me making a somewhat bold statement that you wouldn't be able to make a keystroke on the system that wasn't somewhere in a log - because that's the way systems are built, at least in my own limited experience. Several people patiently explained that there's almost always a way to make unaudited changes if you know how and have the relevant access.

[LimmerickLad]

Bonefish Blues said:

siremoon said:

LimmerickLad said:

I'm probably getting way out of my depth here so apologies if this doesn't make sense:


IIRC a lot of the dancing on the head of a pin was more about was Horizon "systemically flawed" and not about whether it was "fundamentally flawed"?

Whilst all the damage done to many SPM's is 100% unnacceptable and tragic and heads should roll for it, are they not saying that, given that 99.999% of transactions are fine and accepting the system has some "fundamental flaws" (i.e. faults & weaknesses), but the system is not "systemically flawed" because it works fine 99.999% of the time on millions of transaction, however it was what happened (or didn't) after these "flaws" were found that is the real problem.

Imo the system was systemically flawed because it allowed unaudited (or inadequately audited) changes to the accounts via a back door. That back door wasn't a bug, it was a deliberately implemented feature. The bugs related to the incorrect calculation of the numbers brought that systemic flaw into play because the back door was used in an attempt to hide the effect of the bugs without the knowledge of one set of key stake holders ie the SPMs. The number of accounting bugs and the use of the back door to manipulate the consequences of those bugs created the conditions for what happened subsequently.

The very fact that the PO and Fujitsu consistently lied about the existence of the back door tells you they knew it wasn't something that should exist in the form it did in a system of this nature.

Edited by siremoon on Sunday 30th June 08:07

I remember very early thread me making a somewhat bold statement that you wouldn't be able to make a keystroke on the system that wasn't somewhere in a log - because that's the way systems are built, at least in my own limited experience. Several people patiently explained that there's almost always a way to make unaudited changes if you know how and have the relevant access.

Im no IT person but playing devil's advocate:

Having a backdoor purposely built in kind of makes sense........it's the fact it was hidden, denied existance and access not recorded was the issue, therefore as the system worked 99.999% of the time, the system in itself was fine but it was the arsholes involved in the "cover ups" to hide its use and existance that are to blame not the system itself? I tend to see the backdoor as a bit of a built in engine management code reader that allows you to see what went wrong and then reset once the fault was fixed / rectified but happy to be corrected if I am seeing it wrongly.

I live by the motto - it isn't what you do wrong but what you do to put it right that matters.......the problem as I see it was once the 1st PM was prosecuted for something that was actually down to the faulty system, in POL & FJ's minds they couldn't admit the "back door" hence the whole lie just snowballed and, aagin IMO, became a conspiracy and a coverup at the expense of the small people in this i.e. the SPM's..those involved in this conspracy should pay a very high price IMO but I have a funny feeling there will only be 1 or 2 scapegoats and the real villains PV, JS et al and the lawyerswill get away with it scott free!

[Bonefish Blues]

Yes, I think we agree violently. They couldn't let those crooked SPMs get away with it or it would be chaos, so the system's integrity had to be protected at all costs.

[dmsims]

One of the (many) damning issues is that no one ever thought to trace where the "money" had gone. (I know this wasn't a requirement)