Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
Digger said:
LimmerickLad said:
Funny how people see things differently.....I saw lots a jabs but no knockout blows.
Unlike with the mouthy Scottish twit, they appear to be handling GJ more sensitively, as if they know how far to push based on the individual's character.
Is she really trying to position this as Fujitsu were the expert witness and not GJ? Even though he was the one creating the content for and signing off the statements in the role of expert witness and therefore assuming the responsibility of that role.
She has some front on here I'll give her that, can't be an easy job keeping a straight face.
She has some front on here I'll give her that, can't be an easy job keeping a straight face.
Stussy said:
And then she calls out Mr Beer saying he must have misread something!
He’s certainly getting his moneys worth with her!
4:56:30 for anyone who missed it
Not quite clear how to find those times:if I look at the live feed for the day (obviously now finished), it runs from ) to 2:41:00 He’s certainly getting his moneys worth with her!
4:56:30 for anyone who missed it
Can you give us a timestamp . . . aaah I think this is the wrong vid - will wait for the afternoon vid to be loaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yw93moZP88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yw93moZP88
This one, I’m not entirely sure of the point she’s making though
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZRoNgtQvmv8?si=VZhNeI...
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZRoNgtQvmv8?si=VZhNeI...
Stussy said:
This one, I’m not entirely sure of the point she’s making though
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZRoNgtQvmv8?si=VZhNeI...
Is it that it states his duty to the post office and not the court?https://www.youtube.com/live/ZRoNgtQvmv8?si=VZhNeI...
simon_harris said:
Is she really trying to position this as Fujitsu were the expert witness and not GJ? Even though he was the one creating the content for and signing off the statements in the role of expert witness and therefore assuming the responsibility of that role.
She has some front on here I'll give her that, can't be an easy job keeping a straight face.
Read my comments yesterday. Fujitsu were engaged to provide expert evidence. Fujitsu should have ensured GJ was properly prepared and managed. The letter (apparently the only one ever shown to GJ) was addressed to Fujitsu, not GJ. Fujitsu very clearly dropped the ball big time.She has some front on here I'll give her that, can't be an easy job keeping a straight face.
outnumbered said:
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.
He's not exactly an objective observer though. If a system that played a major part in the wrongful conviction of 700-odd people is not as flawed as has been portrayed then what does a bad system look like? It's like saying the design and/or implementation of the Titanic or the Boeing MCAS were not as bad as portrayed. At the end of the day it's all about outcomes. At multiple levels of abstraction away from in service operation the underlying concept may have some theoretical merit but that's hardly the point if the implementation can't handle in service conditions. siremoon said:
He's not exactly an objective observer though. If a system that played a major part in the wrongful conviction of 700-odd people is not as flawed as has been portrayed then what does a bad system look like? It's like saying the design and/or implementation of the Titanic or the Boeing MCAS were not as bad as portrayed. At the end of the day it's all about outcomes. At multiple levels of abstraction away from in service operation the underlying concept may have some theoretical merit but that's hardly the point if the implementation can't handle in service conditions.
I think he is partly right. It isn't fundamentally flawed. It handled billions of transactions without issues. It is flawed in some use cases and had/has bugs, as all systems do. It did handle regular service outcomes for 99.999% of activities.
What was flawed was the service management, bug/issue tracking, resolution and awareness to the business that it was not perfect so you might want to triple check and deep dive EVERY potential prosecution.
vaud said:
I think he is partly right. It isn't fundamentally flawed. It handled billions of transactions without issues.
It is flawed in some use cases and had/has bugs, as all systems do. It did handle regular service outcomes for 99.999% of activities.
What was flawed was the service management, bug/issue tracking, resolution and awareness to the business that it was not perfect so you might want to triple check and deep dive EVERY potential prosecution.
The fundamental flaw is that fake transactions can be inserted into the ledgers without the appropriate audit trail being created.It is flawed in some use cases and had/has bugs, as all systems do. It did handle regular service outcomes for 99.999% of activities.
What was flawed was the service management, bug/issue tracking, resolution and awareness to the business that it was not perfect so you might want to triple check and deep dive EVERY potential prosecution.
A fundamental flaw doesn’t have to occur frequently to still be a fundamental flaw.
Ken_Code said:
vaud said:
I think he is partly right. It isn't fundamentally flawed. It handled billions of transactions without issues.
It is flawed in some use cases and had/has bugs, as all systems do. It did handle regular service outcomes for 99.999% of activities.
What was flawed was the service management, bug/issue tracking, resolution and awareness to the business that it was not perfect so you might want to triple check and deep dive EVERY potential prosecution.
The fundamental flaw is that fake transactions can be inserted into the ledgers without the appropriate audit trail being created.It is flawed in some use cases and had/has bugs, as all systems do. It did handle regular service outcomes for 99.999% of activities.
What was flawed was the service management, bug/issue tracking, resolution and awareness to the business that it was not perfect so you might want to triple check and deep dive EVERY potential prosecution.
A fundamental flaw doesn’t have to occur frequently to still be a fundamental flaw.
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.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff