From last week.
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to +U150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
In effect, you can (indeed should) write systems so that if a transaction succeeds, you
are sure the balance is correct, but there are still cases where a transaction fails.
Failed transactions would need to be identified and accounted for manually. This manual
intervention is very costly in terms of effort and is very much considered a bug.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10j0me8$258oe$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
But the Post Office claimed that there were "no bugs capable of
causing accounting shortfalls"; and *not*, as you correctly point
out, "no bugs at all"
In effect, you can (indeed should) write systems so that if a transaction succeeds, you
are sure the balance is correct, but there are still cases where a transaction fails.
Failed transactions would need to be identified and accounted for manually. This manual
intervention is very costly in terms of effort and is very much considered a bug.
And so contrary to what the Post Office claimed, transactions failed
which required manual intervention; which again as you rightly point
out, would very much be considered bugs.
You are Paula Vennels CBE(stripped) AICMFP (in cash)
bb
On 30/12/2025 16:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10j0me8$258oe$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
But the Post Office claimed that there were "no bugs capable of
causing accounting shortfalls"; and *not*, as you correctly point
out, "no bugs at all"
There were hundreds of trials. Did the post office use the same words in every trial,
and what were those exact words, including context, please?
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to +U150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon
could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately.
Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongly
prosecuted after the faulty Horizon IT system made it look like
money was missing from branch accounts.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqlkx6n15ero
bb
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10j0me8$258oe$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
But the Post Office claimed that there were "no bugs capable of
causing accounting shortfalls"; and *not*, as you correctly point
out, "no bugs at all"
In effect, you can (indeed should) write systems so that if a transaction succeeds, you
are sure the balance is correct, but there are still cases where a transaction fails.
Failed transactions would need to be identified and accounted for manually. This manual
intervention is very costly in terms of effort and is very much considered a bug.
And so contrary to what the Post Office claimed, transactions failed
which required manual intervention; which again as you rightly point
out, would very much be considered bugs.
You are Paula Vennels CBE(stripped) AICMFP (in cash)
bb
On 12/30/25 16:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10j0me8$258oe$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions
and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
But the Post Office claimed that there were "no bugs capable of
causing accounting shortfalls"; and *not*, as you correctly point
out, "no bugs at all"
In effect, you can (indeed should) write systems so that if a transaction succeeds,
you
are sure the balance is correct, but there are still cases where a transaction fails.
Failed transactions would need to be identified and accounted for manually. This
manual
intervention is very costly in terms of effort and is very much considered a bug.
And so contrary to what the Post Office claimed, transactions failed
which required manual intervention; which again as you rightly point
out, would very much be considered bugs.
You are Paula Vennels CBE(stripped) AICMFP (in cash)
My point was not in favour of Vennels, but against the legal system. The legal system
is trying to exonerate itself by claiming the wrongful convictions were entirely due to
criminal dishonesty on the part of the PO. They do this by misrepresenting and
exaggerating the significance of evidence. They are using blatantly incorrect arguments
to convict the PO in exactly the same way that blatantly incorrect arguments were used
to wrongly convict the sub-postmasters in the first place.
In effect, I'm saying the legal process is guilty of not subjecting the PO prosecution
to reasonable technical scrutiny.
The legal system is continuing to support authoritarian processes with very similar
obvious technical flaws to the PO prosecutions. Take PCNs and London Tribunals as an
example.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10j3sls$2q8m1$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 16:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10j0me8$258oe$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions >>>>> and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
But the Post Office claimed that there were "no bugs capable of
causing accounting shortfalls"; and *not*, as you correctly point
out, "no bugs at all"
In effect, you can (indeed should) write systems so that if a transaction succeeds,
you
are sure the balance is correct, but there are still cases where a transaction fails.
Failed transactions would need to be identified and accounted for manually. This
manual
intervention is very costly in terms of effort and is very much considered a bug.
And so contrary to what the Post Office claimed, transactions failed
which required manual intervention; which again as you rightly point
out, would very much be considered bugs.
You are Paula Vennels CBE(stripped) AICMFP (in cash)
My point was not in favour of Vennels, but against the legal system. The legal system
is trying to exonerate itself by claiming the wrongful convictions were entirely due to
criminal dishonesty on the part of the PO. They do this by misrepresenting and
exaggerating the significance of evidence. They are using blatantly incorrect arguments
to convict the PO in exactly the same way that blatantly incorrect arguments were used
to wrongly convict the sub-postmasters in the first place.
I think you'll find that as of this moment at least, nobody from the PO has been charged, let alone convicted, of any criminal offence at all.
Lawyers are under an obligation to accept the word of their clients
and or in this case their employers, up until such time as they have
serious reason to have doubts. In which case, they should withdraw.
In this case the client being "Britains' most trusted brand" being led by
the smiling, customer friendly Paula Venells *
The actual point being of course, that none of these actions viewed in isolation, prosecuting sub P.O 's, or reaching agreements with Fujitsu
were criminal acts in themselves ; the crime only arose when they
were "knowingly" performed in tandem.
Now from a purely practical point of view, lawyers involved in bringing prosecutions on behalf of the PO are less likely to be also involved in drawing up contracts, NDO's or this latest Fujitsu arrangement, involving
the PO.
Whereas from the PO's point of view, from middle management upwards
it simply beggars belief that nobody in the organisation can have been unaware of the fact that the PO was authorising prosecutions of sub PO's; while at the same time being in possession of evidence pointing
towards their innocence. Not only that, but they didn't inform their immediate senior managers, and so on, right up to the top.
Bug reports are one thing; highly technical in some instances and not necessarily related to shortfalls in any case. But this agreement, if genuine, is something else entirely. An admission that there were bugs causing
shortfalls; along with an admission that sub PO's accounts could be altered by
third parties. Which had previously both been strenuously denied.
In effect, I'm saying the legal process is guilty of not subjecting the PO prosecution
to reasonable technical scrutiny.
The PO has yet to be prosecuted AFAIAA
The legal system is continuing to support authoritarian processes with very similar
obvious technical flaws to the PO prosecutions. Take PCNs and London Tribunals as an
example.
bb
* As with Boris Johnson, a clown elected as PM just before a pandemic,
it was just the smiling Paula Vennels luck - to be appointed CEO of the
PO just as they were about accused of orchestrating the biggest miscarriage of justice in history. As with Harvey Weinsten, convicted on the basis
of being as ugly as sin as anything else, one can't help feeling that Vennells' biggest crime was her customer friendly manner. But then it probably
did help land her the job in the first place. Rather than any of the anonymous
nonentities in a grey suits; who have thus far at least, avoided the limelight.
My point was not in favour of Vennels, but against the legal system. The legal system
is trying to exonerate itself by claiming the wrongful convictions were entirely due to
criminal dishonesty on the part of the PO. They do this by misrepresenting and
exaggerating the significance of evidence. They are using blatantly incorrect arguments
to convict the PO in exactly the same way that blatantly incorrect arguments were used
to wrongly convict the sub-postmasters in the first place.
I think you'll find that as of this moment at least, nobody from the PO has been charged, let alone convicted, of any criminal offence at all.
Lawyers are under an obligation to accept the word of their clients
and or in this case their employers, up until such time as they have
serious reason to have doubts. In which case, they should withdraw.
In this case the client being "Britains' most trusted brand" being led by
the smiling, customer friendly Paula Venells *
The actual point being of course, that none of these actions viewed in isolation, prosecuting sub P.O 's, or reaching agreements with Fujitsu
were criminal acts in themselves ; the crime only arose when they
were "knowingly" performed in tandem.
Now from a purely practical point of view, lawyers involved in bringing prosecutions on behalf of the PO are less likely to be also involved in drawing up contracts, NDO's or this latest Fujitsu arrangement, involving
the PO.
Whereas from the PO's point of view, from middle management upwards
it simply beggars belief that nobody in the organisation can have been unaware of the fact that the PO was authorising prosecutions of sub PO's; while at the same time being in possession of evidence pointing
towards their innocence. Not only that, but they didn't inform their immediate senior managers, and so on, right up to the top.
Bug reports are one thing; highly technical in some instances and not necessarily related to shortfalls in any case. But this agreement, if genuine, is something else entirely. An admission that there were bugs causing
shortfalls; along with an admission that sub PO's accounts could be altered by
third parties. Which had previously both been strenuously denied.
>
In effect, I'm saying the legal process is guilty of not subjecting the PO prosecution
to reasonable technical scrutiny.
The PO has yet to be prosecuted AFAIAA
The legal system is continuing to support authoritarian processes with very similar
obvious technical flaws to the PO prosecutions. Take PCNs and London Tribunals as an
example.
bb
* As with Boris Johnson, a clown elected as PM just before a pandemic,
it was just the smiling Paula Vennels luck - to be appointed CEO of the
PO just as they were about accused of orchestrating the biggest miscarriage of justice in history. As with Harvey Weinsten, convicted on the basis
of being as ugly as sin as anything else, one can't help feeling that Vennells' biggest crime was her customer friendly manner. But then it probably
did help land her the job in the first place. Rather than any of the anonymous
nonentities in a grey suits; who have thus far at least, avoided the limelight.
I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal >things. The justice system should be configured to handle her
behaviour. There should have been rules in place to check what the PO
did and mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is
little point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
In message <10j8n6l$g3hq$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:15 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal >>things. The justice system should be configured to handle her behaviour. >>There should have been rules in place to check what the PO did and
mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is little
point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
What I find extremely difficult to believe is her claim that she didn't
know the PO was conducting private prosecutions, and hence relied upon
the good offices of the CPS to make sure all prosecutions were kosher.
On 1/1/26 12:34, billy bookcase wrote:
My point was not in favour of Vennels, but against the legal system. The legal system
is trying to exonerate itself by claiming the wrongful convictions were entirely due
to
criminal dishonesty on the part of the PO. They do this by misrepresenting and
exaggerating the significance of evidence. They are using blatantly incorrect
arguments
to convict the PO in exactly the same way that blatantly incorrect arguments were
used
to wrongly convict the sub-postmasters in the first place.
I think you'll find that as of this moment at least, nobody from the PO has >> been charged, let alone convicted, of any criminal offence at all.
Lawyers are under an obligation to accept the word of their clients
and or in this case their employers, up until such time as they have
serious reason to have doubts. In which case, they should withdraw.
In this case the client being "Britains' most trusted brand" being led by
the smiling, customer friendly Paula Venells *
The actual point being of course, that none of these actions viewed in
isolation, prosecuting sub P.O 's, or reaching agreements with Fujitsu
were criminal acts in themselves ; the crime only arose when they
were "knowingly" performed in tandem.
"knowingly" performed in tandem, doesn't mean anything.
Now from a purely practical point of view, lawyers involved in bringing
prosecutions on behalf of the PO are less likely to be also involved in
drawing up contracts, NDO's or this latest Fujitsu arrangement, involving
the PO.
Whereas from the PO's point of view, from middle management upwards
it simply beggars belief that nobody in the organisation can have been
unaware of the fact that the PO was authorising prosecutions of sub PO's;
while at the same time being in possession of evidence pointing
towards their innocence. Not only that, but they didn't inform their
immediate senior managers, and so on, right up to the top.
It is a typical hindsight fallacy that people understand complex systems.
Bug reports are one thing; highly technical in some instances and not
necessarily related to shortfalls in any case. But this agreement, if
genuine, is something else entirely. An admission that there were bugs causing
shortfalls; along with an admission that sub PO's accounts could be altered by
third parties. Which had previously both been strenuously denied.
>
In effect, I'm saying the legal process is guilty of not subjecting the PO >>> prosecution
to reasonable technical scrutiny.
The PO has yet to be prosecuted AFAIAA
Apologies, I realise I wrote that poorly. I meant prosecution(s) against sub-postmasters by the PO.
I do not accept your argument that there is compelling evidence that senior people in
the PO knew the sub-postmasters were innocent. I have worked for large financial
organisations, and it is my experience that management almost always did not understand
low level software processes.
You appear to be using a common hindsight fallacy that people must have understood a
complex system and lied, rather than have given an honest, but mistaken, interpretation
(albeit self-serving). This is very similar to the arguments used to convict the
sub-postmasters. The real physical evidence of wrongdoing by many sub-postmasters was
genuine, much stronger than your interpretation that the PO knew there were bugs, and
that these bugs could cause the shortfalls.
My point was that the justice system has a job, that job should be to try to ensure
fair and correct convictions. From a software/technical viewpoint, many of the issues
you are discussing are just unreasonable. It is not sensible to ask a senior person if
financial records can be modified remotely, the sensible question to ask is "how" can
we be sure records have not been modified remotely. What procedures do you have to
prevent it, or report it when it does occur. It is not sensible to accept a claim that
bugs do not occur, all software has bugs. The sensible question is how do they record
bugs. How do they handle failed reconciliations, how are they recorded. What happens
with a reconciliation failure where cause cannot be attributed.
The point is that if the PO couldn't show a reasonable software audit history, the
courts should not have accepted the software as evidence.
I understand this because I worked on financial software throughout the period in
question. While I didn't work with real money (settlement systems), even for the
imaginary money I worked with we were given audit requirements to make sure we could
not fudge the books.
The legal system is continuing to support authoritarian processes with very similar
obvious technical flaws to the PO prosecutions. Take PCNs and London Tribunals as an
example.
bb
* As with Boris Johnson, a clown elected as PM just before a pandemic,
it was just the smiling Paula Vennels luck - to be appointed CEO of the
PO just as they were about accused of orchestrating the biggest miscarriage >> of justice in history. As with Harvey Weinsten, convicted on the basis
of being as ugly as sin as anything else, one can't help feeling that
Vennells' biggest crime was her customer friendly manner. But then it probably
did help land her the job in the first place. Rather than any of the anonymous
nonentities in a grey suits; who have thus far at least, avoided the limelight.
Yeah. I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal things.
The justice system should be configured to handle her behaviour. There should have been
rules in place to check what the PO did and mitigate for the problems of normal human
behaviour. There is little point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic
problem.
On 1/1/26 12:34, billy bookcase wrote:
My point was not in favour of Vennels, but against the legal system. The legal system
is trying to exonerate itself by claiming the wrongful convictions were entirely due to
criminal dishonesty on the part of the PO. They do this by misrepresenting and
exaggerating the significance of evidence. They are using blatantly incorrect arguments
to convict the PO in exactly the same way that blatantly incorrect arguments were used
to wrongly convict the sub-postmasters in the first place.
I think you'll find that as of this moment at least, nobody from the PO has >> been charged, let alone convicted, of any criminal offence at all.
Lawyers are under an obligation to accept the word of their clients
and or in this case their employers, up until such time as they have
serious reason to have doubts. In which case, they should withdraw.
In this case the client being "Britains' most trusted brand" being led by
the smiling, customer friendly Paula Venells *
The actual point being of course, that none of these actions viewed in
isolation, prosecuting sub P.O 's, or reaching agreements with Fujitsu
were criminal acts in themselves ; the crime only arose when they
were "knowingly" performed in tandem.
"knowingly" performed in tandem, doesn't mean anything.
Now from a purely practical point of view, lawyers involved in bringing
prosecutions on behalf of the PO are less likely to be also involved in
drawing up contracts, NDO's or this latest Fujitsu arrangement, involving
the PO.
Whereas from the PO's point of view, from middle management upwards
it simply beggars belief that nobody in the organisation can have been
unaware of the fact that the PO was authorising prosecutions of sub PO's;
while at the same time being in possession of evidence pointing
towards their innocence. Not only that, but they didn't inform their
immediate senior managers, and so on, right up to the top.
It is a typical hindsight fallacy that people understand complex systems.
Bug reports are one thing; highly technical in some instances and not
necessarily related to shortfalls in any case. But this agreement, if
genuine, is something else entirely. An admission that there were bugs causing
shortfalls; along with an admission that sub PO's accounts could be altered by
third parties. Which had previously both been strenuously denied.
>
In effect, I'm saying the legal process is guilty of not subjecting the PO prosecution
to reasonable technical scrutiny.
The PO has yet to be prosecuted AFAIAA
Apologies, I realise I wrote that poorly. I meant prosecution(s) against >sub-postmasters by the PO.
I do not accept your argument that there is compelling evidence that
senior people in the PO knew the sub-postmasters were innocent. I have >worked for large financial organisations, and it is my experience that >management almost always did not understand low level software processes.
You appear to be using a common hindsight fallacy that people must have >understood a complex system and lied, rather than have given an honest,
but mistaken, interpretation (albeit self-serving). This is very similar
to the arguments used to convict the sub-postmasters. The real physical >evidence of wrongdoing by many sub-postmasters was genuine, much
stronger than your interpretation that the PO knew there were bugs, and
that these bugs could cause the shortfalls.
My point was that the justice system has a job, that job should be to
try to ensure fair and correct convictions. From a software/technical >viewpoint, many of the issues you are discussing are just unreasonable.
It is not sensible to ask a senior person if financial records can be >modified remotely, the sensible question to ask is "how" can we be sure >records have not been modified remotely. What procedures do you have to >prevent it, or report it when it does occur. It is not sensible to
accept a claim that bugs do not occur, all software has bugs. The
sensible question is how do they record bugs. How do they handle failed >reconciliations, how are they recorded. What happens with a
reconciliation failure where cause cannot be attributed.
The point is that if the PO couldn't show a reasonable software audit >history, the courts should not have accepted the software as evidence.
I understand this because I worked on financial software throughout the >period in question. While I didn't work with real money (settlement >systems), even for the imaginary money I worked with we were given audit >requirements to make sure we could not fudge the books.
The legal system is continuing to support authoritarian processes with very similar
obvious technical flaws to the PO prosecutions. Take PCNs and London Tribunals as an
example.
bb
* As with Boris Johnson, a clown elected as PM just before a pandemic,
it was just the smiling Paula Vennels luck - to be appointed CEO of the
PO just as they were about accused of orchestrating the biggest miscarriage >> of justice in history. As with Harvey Weinsten, convicted on the basis
of being as ugly as sin as anything else, one can't help feeling that
Vennells' biggest crime was her customer friendly manner. But then it probably
did help land her the job in the first place. Rather than any of the anonymous
nonentities in a grey suits; who have thus far at least, avoided the limelight.
Yeah. I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing
normal things. The justice system should be configured to handle her >behaviour. There should have been rules in place to check what the PO
did and mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is
little point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 10:26:28 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10j8n6l$g3hq$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:15 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal >>>things. The justice system should be configured to handle her behaviour. >>>There should have been rules in place to check what the PO did and >>>mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is little >>>point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
What I find extremely difficult to believe is her claim that she didn't
know the PO was conducting private prosecutions, and hence relied upon
the good offices of the CPS to make sure all prosecutions were kosher.
Yet another example of someone whose job is to be responsible for an >opganisation (remember that's why the salary is so high) who is allowed
to get away with saying "nothing to do with me guv" when the shit hits
the fan.
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
"knowingly" performed in tandem, doesn't mean anything.
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph.
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
In message <10jat3m$73to$7@dont-email.me>, at 11:04:22 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 10:26:28 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10j8n6l$g3hq$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:15 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal >>>> things. The justice system should be configured to handle her behaviour. >>>> There should have been rules in place to check what the PO did and
mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is little
point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
What I find extremely difficult to believe is her claim that she didn't
know the PO was conducting private prosecutions, and hence relied upon
the good offices of the CPS to make sure all prosecutions were kosher.
Yet another example of someone whose job is to be responsible for an
opganisation (remember that's why the salary is so high) who is allowed
to get away with saying "nothing to do with me guv" when the shit hits
the fan.
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
On a day to day basis having an overview of the organisation's
operations, and in this specific instance approving the budget for the
legal department's prosecutions, or alternatively asking at board
meetings "I understand we have a problem with dishonest sub-postmasters,
how many case files have we handed over to the CPS, and how many of
those were taken to court successfully".
Are you seriously saying that when you worked in such organisations,
if you knew decisions that could damage people both inside and outside
the organisation, were being made using wonky processes, you would
not have bothered to tell your boss because of his/her lack of
technical knowledge?
If that is true, then then people who failed to tell their superiors
should be convicted but I don't see much sign of that.
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
On a day to day basis having an overview of the organisation's
operations, and in this specific instance approving the budget for the
legal department's prosecutions, or alternatively asking at board
meetings "I understand we have a problem with dishonest sub-postmasters,
how many case files have we handed over to the CPS, and how many of
those were taken to court successfully".
A question that might also have been asked by the CEO could have been rCYWhy >have we suddenly got so many crooked postmasters when we never had this
sort of number before the new system was brought in?rCY.
In message <10jat3m$73to$7@dont-email.me>, at 11:04:22 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 10:26:28 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10j8n6l$g3hq$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:15 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal >>>>things. The justice system should be configured to handle her >>>>behaviour.
There should have been rules in place to check what the PO did and >>>>mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is little >>>>point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
What I find extremely difficult to believe is her claim that she
didn't know the PO was conducting private prosecutions, and hence
relied upon the good offices of the CPS to make sure all prosecutions
were kosher.
Yet another example of someone whose job is to be responsible for an >>opganisation (remember that's why the salary is so high) who is allowed
to get away with saying "nothing to do with me guv" when the shit hits
the fan.
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
On a day to day basis having an overview of the organisation's
operations, and in this specific instance approving the budget for the
legal department's prosecutions, or alternatively asking at board
meetings "I understand we have a problem with dishonest sub-postmasters,
how many case files have we handed over to the CPS, and how many of
those were taken to court successfully".
In message <mrt65mFgl0lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:40:54 on Sat, 3 Jan 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
On a day to day basis having an overview of the organisation's
operations, and in this specific instance approving the budget for the
legal department's prosecutions, or alternatively asking at board
meetings "I understand we have a problem with dishonest sub-postmasters, >>> how many case files have we handed over to the CPS, and how many of
those were taken to court successfully".
A question that might also have been asked by the CEO could have been rCYWhy >> have we suddenly got so many crooked postmasters when we never had this
sort of number before the new system was brought in?rCY.
That's a much easier question for people to answer, for example "because before the new system they were stealing and getting away with it".
My question's honest answer would be "None, and hence None", which immediately requires a follow-up "If the CPS aren't doing the
prosecuting, who *is*?"
On 1/3/26 15:19, Martin Harran wrote:
Are you seriously saying that when you worked in such organisations,
if you knew decisions that could damage people both inside and outside
the organisation, were being made using wonky processes, you would
not have bothered to tell your boss because of his/her lack of
technical knowledge?
Yes, absolutely. On one occasion, I gave technically correct information
to an auditor but did not express concerns over the software. He
appeared to miss vital aspects of the code, perhaps he did understand
and hence didn't raise the issue, I dunno. In that instance, I assume
senior people to me did understand the problem but the people directly >employing me wanted the software to work the way it did (i.e. above my >paygrade and whistleblowing might have impacted economically upon me).
To his credit, one of my coworkers refused to write the code.
If that is true, then then people who failed to tell their superiors
should be convicted but I don't see much sign of that.
There is no law requiring employees to express every concern. Software >development has an endless stream of concerns. How do you split criminal >omission from quietly getting on with the job? I've not heard of a
software developer getting into trouble for "only following orders".
FWIW, there actually were some specific concerns I was explicitly
required to raise, but the scope was limited to specific types of
criminal behaviour as opposed to just writing crap code.
On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 17:38:13 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10jat3m$73to$7@dont-email.me>, at 11:04:22 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 10:26:28 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10j8n6l$g3hq$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:15 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
I'm trying to make the point Vennels was a normal person, doing normal >>>>> things. The justice system should be configured to handle her
behaviour.
There should have been rules in place to check what the PO did and
mitigate for the problems of normal human behaviour. There is little >>>>> point in scapegoating individuals when there is a systemic problem.
What I find extremely difficult to believe is her claim that she
didn't know the PO was conducting private prosecutions, and hence
relied upon the good offices of the CPS to make sure all prosecutions
were kosher.
Yet another example of someone whose job is to be responsible for an
opganisation (remember that's why the salary is so high) who is allowed
to get away with saying "nothing to do with me guv" when the shit hits
the fan.
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
On a day to day basis having an overview of the organisation's
operations, and in this specific instance approving the budget for the
legal department's prosecutions, or alternatively asking at board
meetings "I understand we have a problem with dishonest sub-postmasters,
how many case files have we handed over to the CPS, and how many of
those were taken to court successfully".
It seems to be a fact that the higher you go in an organistion, the less
you are actually expected to be responsible for.
Or, mathematically, renumeration is inversely related to reponsibilty. An assertion that appears to hold valid when you consider how much a nurse
with a wardful of peoples lives in their hands being paid a fraction of
what the hospital director will get for their responsibility of making
sure the shareholders are satisfied ....
On 1/2/26 18:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"knowingly" performed in tandem, doesn't mean anything.
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph.
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
You appear to be assuming that the existence of cases where the PO held sub-postmasters
responsible for shortfalls (which the PO asserted were not due to bugs) is the same as
the PO claiming that their software was universally free of bugs, and specifically free
of bugs that could cause shortfalls.
For clarity, all large financial software systems have bugs. It would be very surprising, unbelievable, if the PO claimed Horizon had no bugs. Do you have a cite for
such a claim?
On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for the PO to claim that while the
Horizon system had bugs, it was the opinion of a system expert that it was beyond
reasonable doubt that these bugs were not the cause of specific shortfalls. Note, I
accept this expert view was wrong, but I don't accept it was necessarily dishonest. In
most of the cases the prosecutions were based not just on shortfalls but also upon
genuine cases of false accounting (although the false accounting was motivated by
computer system errors)
The crux of the issue is how we quantify reasonable doubt, confidence in the software
system. This is where software quality stats, standards and audits should have come in,
but don't appear to have been considered. The computer was considered God.
My view is that the criminal justice system was at fault by not protecting defendants
from an unreasonable "computer says no" argument. This is an ongoing issue. The
criminal justice system still allows obviously technically unreliable systems to be
used to prosecute and convict innocent people. Throwing Vennells or other PO employs
under the bus may satisfy people's lust for vengeance, but it does little to stop
similar things happening in future.
The real solution is rules and regulations to control how technical evidence is
considered.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <mrt65mFgl0lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:40:54 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
What *exactly* is a CEO responsible for ?
On a day to day basis having an overview of the organisation's
operations, and in this specific instance approving the budget for the >>>> legal department's prosecutions, or alternatively asking at board
meetings "I understand we have a problem with dishonest sub-postmasters, >>>> how many case files have we handed over to the CPS, and how many of
those were taken to court successfully".
A question that might also have been asked by the CEO could have been rCYWhy
have we suddenly got so many crooked postmasters when we never had this
sort of number before the new system was brought in?rCY.
That's a much easier question for people to answer, for example "because
before the new system they were stealing and getting away with it".
That assumes there was either no or no effective auditing of individual PO >accounts, which is hard to believe as bookkeeping has existed for
millennia.
--My question's honest answer would be "None, and hence None", which
immediately requires a follow-up "If the CPS aren't doing the
prosecuting, who *is*?"
Quite so.
It seems to be a fact that the higher you go in an organistion, the less
you are actually expected to be responsible for.
Or, mathematically, renumeration is inversely related to reponsibilty. An >assertion that appears to hold valid when you consider how much a nurse
with a wardful of peoples lives in their hands being paid a fraction of
what the hospital director will get for their responsibility of making
sure the shareholders are satisfied ....
[snip]which the
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph.
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time*reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for whichboth parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
bb
On 18:20 2 Jan 2026, billy bookcase said:
Your line length is unusually long. Greater than 80 characters will cause messy wrapping on many readers. Try:
msimn.exe > outlook express > options > send > html settings > 72
In message <10jdg7p$73to$8@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:05 on Sun, 4 Jan
2026, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
It seems to be a fact that the higher you go in an organistion, the less
you are actually expected to be responsible for.
Or, mathematically, renumeration is inversely related to reponsibilty. An
assertion that appears to hold valid when you consider how much a nurse
with a wardful of peoples lives in their hands being paid a fraction of
what the hospital director will get for their responsibility of making
sure the shareholders are satisfied ....
Conversely, the higher up you go, if you make them more responsible for
the errors of all those below them, the more "danger money" you need to
pay them, to be even prepared to take the job.
The crux of the issue is that the PO lied.
As I explained before I'm not assuming anything
The real solution is rules and regulations to control how technical evidence is
considered.
Er no. The real solution is for people to not to lie through their teeth.
On 18:20 2 Jan 2026, billy bookcase said:
[snip]
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph.
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for >which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* >reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which >both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
bb
Your line length is unusually long. Greater than 80 characters will cause >messy wrapping on many readers. Try:
msimn.exe > outlook express > options > send > html settings > 72
Then, one day, Nurse XYZ kills a patient- say they give a massive
overdose of a drug.
On 1/5/26 10:50, billy bookcase wrote:
The crux of the issue is that the PO lied.
As I explained before I'm not assuming anything
You present someone saying something factually incorrect and assume dishonesty. In software circles, people make mistakes, make false claims, say things that are false, all the time.
The PO may well have lied, but you are not showing that they did.
Your solution is that people shouldn't tell fibs? In practical terms, how would you stop someone from fibbing?
Many of the convicted sub-postmasters were convicted of fibbing (false accounting). Do you support those convictions?
Should we convict people for lying to the BBC?
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:20:38 GMT, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:20 2 Jan 2026, billy bookcase said:
[snip]
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph. >>>
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for >>which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* >>reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which >>both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
bb
Your line length is unusually long. Greater than 80 characters will cause >>messy wrapping on many readers. Try:
msimn.exe > outlook express > options > send > html settings > 72
Outlook Express - WOW!
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:8ggolkpvriv5jc4mnd80qdf43lertcqvk0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:20:38 GMT, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:20 2 Jan 2026, billy bookcase said:
[snip]
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph. >>>>
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for >>>which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* >>>reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which >>>both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
bb
Your line length is unusually long. Greater than 80 characters will cause >>>messy wrapping on many readers. Try:
msimn.exe > outlook express > options > send > html settings > 72
Outlook Express - WOW!
I know. I can't even post pictures of kittens !
ad the 2005 agreement between the PO and Fujitsu been made available to
the defence in all subsequent cases, then most of those prosecutions would have
failed, with earlier convictions appealed. Excepting those cases of actual theft, as regularly occurred apparently.
On 06/01/2026 13:29, billy bookcase wrote:
ad the 2005 agreement between the PO and Fujitsu been made available to
the defence in all subsequent cases, then most of those prosecutions
would have failed, with earlier convictions appealed. Excepting those
cases of actual theft, as regularly occurred apparently.
A question then. I seem to recall that in a criminal case, the
prosecution is required to hand to the defence all evidence that may exonerate the accused, even if not asked for. Is this true? If so, does
it have a bearing on the conduct of the PO and prosecutors?
On 06/01/2026 13:29, billy bookcase wrote:
ad the 2005 agreement between the PO and Fujitsu been made available
to the defence in all subsequent cases, then most of those
prosecutions would have failed, with earlier convictions appealed.
Excepting those cases of actual theft, as regularly occurred apparently.
A question then. I seem to recall that in a criminal case, the
prosecution is required to hand to the defence all evidence that may exonerate the accused, even if not asked for. Is this true? If so, does
it have a bearing on the conduct of the PO and prosecutors?
On 06/01/2026 13:29, billy bookcase wrote:
ad the 2005 agreement between the PO and Fujitsu been made available to
the defence in all subsequent cases, then most of those prosecutions would >> have
failed, with earlier convictions appealed. Excepting those cases of actual >> theft, as regularly occurred apparently.
A question then. I seem to recall that in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to hand to the defence all evidence that may exonerate the accused, even if not asked for. Is this true? If so, does it have a bearing on the conduct of the PO and prosecutors?
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 13:30:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:8ggolkpvriv5jc4mnd80qdf43lertcqvk0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:20:38 GMT, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:20 2 Jan 2026, billy bookcase said:
[snip]
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph. >>>>>
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for >>>>which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* >>>>reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which >>>>both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
bb
Your line length is unusually long. Greater than 80 characters will cause >>>>messy wrapping on many readers. Try:
msimn.exe > outlook express > options > send > html settings > 72
Outlook Express - WOW!
I know. I can't even post pictures of kittens !
I'm almost afraid to ask what version of Windows you are running!
I was a big fan of OE and recently created a Virtual Machine running
Windows XP so that I could access my old OE files.
I prefer Gmail to OE but would still prefer OE to Agent for Usenet if
it was available. Agent is far more powerful and flexible in many ways
but I don't make any use of that power and flexibility which I find cumbersome at times and would prefer the relative simplicity of OE.
As failure to do so could result in a Miscarriage of Justice.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:28:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
As failure to do so could result in a Miscarriage of Justice.
Which reporting over the past 30 years shows is no biggie. Well, it is
for the persons locked up. But who cares about them ? I mean they are probably guilty of something.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 11:46:37 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:28:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
As failure to do so could result in a Miscarriage of Justice.
Which reporting over the past 30 years shows is no biggie. Well, it is
for the persons locked up. But who cares about them ? I mean they are
probably guilty of something.
Almost as predicted. Seems even more convictions were dodgy than
previously thought.
The total lack of any of those resposible to be held to account is noted.
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/07/post_office_horizon_rollout/
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:n94slkd9vc8ru81cqlfmqejpu5ri49fv26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 13:30:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:8ggolkpvriv5jc4mnd80qdf43lertcqvk0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:20:38 GMT, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:20 2 Jan 2026, billy bookcase said:
[snip]
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph. >>>>>>
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for >>>>>which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time* >>>>>reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for which >>>>>both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
bb
Your line length is unusually long. Greater than 80 characters will cause >>>>>messy wrapping on many readers. Try:
msimn.exe > outlook express > options > send > html settings > 72
Outlook Express - WOW!
I know. I can't even post pictures of kittens !
I'm almost afraid to ask what version of Windows you are running!
I was a big fan of OE and recently created a Virtual Machine running
Windows XP so that I could access my old OE files.
I prefer Gmail to OE but would still prefer OE to Agent for Usenet if
it was available. Agent is far more powerful and flexible in many ways
but I don't make any use of that power and flexibility which I find
cumbersome at times and would prefer the relative simplicity of OE.
For posting on Newsgroups and receiving mail, I use OE on windows XP
along with the mypal.exe browser.
Otherwise I use Thunderbird and Chrome on Windws 10 and sometimes
Linux Mint for stuff like the Covid stats. As Mint displays
spreadsheets automatically whereas 10 expects you to have
Excel installed.
bb
On 2026-01-07, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 11:46:37 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:28:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
As failure to do so could result in a Miscarriage of Justice.
Which reporting over the past 30 years shows is no biggie. Well, it is
for the persons locked up. But who cares about them ? I mean they are
probably guilty of something.
Almost as predicted. Seems even more convictions were dodgy than
previously thought.
The total lack of any of those resposible to be held to account is
noted.
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/07/post_office_horizon_rollout/
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from as
recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't mean
just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation.
e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time
immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:39:12 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
XP was a grand system. Much of what has been introduced since is MS developers thinking they know better than Users what those Users really
want and need.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10j3sls$2q8m1$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 16:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10j0me8$258oe$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/30/25 11:40, billy bookcase wrote:
From last week.
quote:
The Post Office and Fujitsu agreed a deal 19 years ago to fix
transaction errors in sub-postmasters' accounts caused by bugs
in the Horizon IT system, a document has revealed.
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs
in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post
Office up to L150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during
criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions >>>>> and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed
capable of causing accounting shortfalls.
Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of bugs which would not cause accounting
shortfalls, and yet would still be bugs.
But the Post Office claimed that there were "no bugs capable of
causing accounting shortfalls"; and *not*, as you correctly point
out, "no bugs at all"
In effect, you can (indeed should) write systems so that if a transaction succeeds,
you
are sure the balance is correct, but there are still cases where a transaction fails.
Failed transactions would need to be identified and accounted for manually. This
manual
intervention is very costly in terms of effort and is very much considered a bug.
And so contrary to what the Post Office claimed, transactions failed
which required manual intervention; which again as you rightly point
out, would very much be considered bugs.
You are Paula Vennels CBE(stripped) AICMFP (in cash)
My point was not in favour of Vennels, but against the legal system. The legal system
is trying to exonerate itself by claiming the wrongful convictions were entirely due to
criminal dishonesty on the part of the PO. They do this by misrepresenting and
exaggerating the significance of evidence. They are using blatantly incorrect arguments
to convict the PO in exactly the same way that blatantly incorrect arguments were used
to wrongly convict the sub-postmasters in the first place.
I think you'll find that as of this moment at least, nobody from the PO has been charged, let alone convicted, of any criminal offence at all.
Lawyers are under an obligation to accept the word of their clients
and or in this case their employers, up until such time as they have
serious reason to have doubts. In which case, they should withdraw.
In this case the client being "Britains' most trusted brand" being led by
the smiling, customer friendly Paula Venells *
The actual point being of course, that none of these actions viewed in isolation, prosecuting sub P.O 's, or reaching agreements with Fujitsu
were criminal acts in themselves ; the crime only arose when they
were "knowingly" performed in tandem.
Now from a purely practical point of view, lawyers involved in bringing prosecutions on behalf of the PO are less likely to be also involved in drawing up contracts, NDO's or this latest Fujitsu arrangement, involving
the PO.
Whereas from the PO's point of view, from middle management upwards
it simply beggars belief that nobody in the organisation can have been unaware of the fact that the PO was authorising prosecutions of sub PO's; while at the same time being in possession of evidence pointing
towards their innocence. Not only that, but they didn't inform their immediate senior managers, and so on, right up to the top.
Bug reports are one thing; highly technical in some instances and not necessarily related to shortfalls in any case. But this agreement, if genuine, is something else entirely. An admission that there were bugs causing
shortfalls; along with an admission that sub PO's accounts could be altered by
third parties. Which had previously both been strenuously denied.
The problem I have is believing no one in the PO hierarchy noticed things didnrCOt rCOlook rightrCO.
Surely they had an idea of the rCynormalrCO level of missing moneyrCO before the
new system.
Did no one seriously not ask why the amount going astray had increased ? That seems like a logical first step after such a change.
On 2026-01-08, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
The problem I have is believing no one in the PO hierarchy noticed
things didnrCOt rCOlook rightrCO.
Surely they had an idea of the rCynormalrCO level of missing moneyrCO before
the new system.
Did no one seriously not ask why the amount going astray had increased
?
That seems like a logical first step after such a change.
The obvious explanation is that they thought they had discovered previously-unsuspected widespread fraud, that their marvellous new
technology had revealed for the first time. Bonuses all round!
On 2026-01-08, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
The problem I have is believing no one in the PO hierarchy noticed things
didnrCOt rCOlook rightrCO.
Surely they had an idea of the rCynormalrCO level of missing moneyrCO before the
new system.
Did no one seriously not ask why the amount going astray had increased ?
That seems like a logical first step after such a change.
The obvious explanation is that they thought they had discovered previously-unsuspected widespread fraud, that their marvellous new
technology had revealed for the first time. Bonuses all round!
On 08/01/2026 10:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
The problem I have is believing no one in the PO hierarchy noticed things >>> didnrCOt rCOlook rightrCO.
Surely they had an idea of the rCynormalrCO level of missing moneyrCO before the
new system.
Did no one seriously not ask why the amount going astray had increased ? >>> That seems like a logical first step after such a change.
The obvious explanation is that they thought they had discovered
previously-unsuspected widespread fraud, that their marvellous new
technology had revealed for the first time. Bonuses all round!
But should a routrine accounts audit not have shown up these
discrepancies?
On 2026-01-08, Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 08/01/2026 10:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
The problem I have is believing no one in the PO hierarchy noticed
things didnrCOt rCOlook rightrCO.
Surely they had an idea of the rCynormalrCO level of missing moneyrCO >>>> before the new system.
Did no one seriously not ask why the amount going astray had
increased ?
That seems like a logical first step after such a change.
The obvious explanation is that they thought they had discovered
previously-unsuspected widespread fraud, that their marvellous new
technology had revealed for the first time. Bonuses all round!
But should a routrine accounts audit not have shown up these
discrepancies?
I've no idea. But my point was that if you are in charge of arranging a
new accounting system, and the new system claims a bunch of fraud exists which the old system missed, there are two possibilities.
Either your new system is wrong, you have done a terrible job, and you
should be fired. Or your new system is right, the old system was
terribly lax, you have saved the company a huge pile of money going
forward, and you should be promoted. It is greatly in your interests not
to look too hard for faults.
Man with one clock knows the time.
Man with two clocks never knows the time.
In message <10jofqh$3ll9t$15@dont-email.me>, at 14:43:29 on Thu, 8 Jan
2026, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
Man with one clock knows the time.
Man with two clocks never knows the time.
I used to have two atomic clocks, side by side in the same rack. I think
they used to periodically check with each other that they were showing
the same time.
According to AI even without that, they should have been within a few femtoseconds of each other.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10jofqh$3ll9t$15@dont-email.me>, at 14:43:29 on Thu, 8 Jan
2026, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
Man with one clock knows the time.
Man with two clocks never knows the time.
I used to have two atomic clocks, side by side in the same rack. I think
they used to periodically check with each other that they were showing
the same time.
According to AI even without that, they should have been within a few
femtoseconds of each other.
So one of them was wrong ?
But *which* one ?
On 1/2/26 18:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"knowingly" performed in tandem, doesn't mean anything.
I would have thought my meaning was obvious from the previous paragraph.
Prosecuting sub PO 's as a result of shortfalls in their accounts for
which the
PO was holding them solely reposnsible; *whilst at the very same time*
reaching an
agreement with Fujitsu over shorfalls in the sub PO's account, for
which both parties
agreed Fujtsu were responsible
You appear to be assuming that the existence of cases where the PO held sub-postmasters responsible for shortfalls (which the PO asserted were
not due to bugs) is the same as the PO claiming that their software was universally free of bugs, and specifically free of bugs that could cause shortfalls.
For clarity, all large financial software systems have bugs. It would be very surprising, unbelievable, if the PO claimed Horizon had no bugs. Do
you have a cite for such a claim?
On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for the PO to claim
that while the Horizon system had bugs, it was the opinion of a system expert that it was beyond reasonable doubt that these bugs were not the cause of specific shortfalls. Note, I accept this expert view was wrong,
but I don't accept it was necessarily dishonest. In most of the cases
the prosecutions were based not just on shortfalls but also upon genuine cases of false accounting (although the false accounting was motivated
by computer system errors)
The crux of the issue is how we quantify reasonable doubt, confidence in
the software system. This is where software quality stats, standards and audits should have come in, but don't appear to have been considered.
The computer was considered God.
My view is that the criminal justice system was at fault by not
protecting defendants from an unreasonable "computer says no" argument.
This is an ongoing issue. The criminal justice system still allows
obviously technically unreliable systems to be used to prosecute and
convict innocent people. Throwing Vennells or other PO employs under the
bus may satisfy people's lust for vengeance, but it does little to stop similar things happening in future.
The real solution is rules and regulations to control how technicalRules and regulations already exist. They were ignored. Adding to the
evidence is considered.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n94slkd9vc8ru81cqlfmqejpu5ri49fv26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 13:30:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ggolkpvriv5jc4mnd80qdf43lertcqvk0@4ax.com...
Outlook Express - WOW!
I know. I can't even post pictures of kittens !
I'm almost afraid to ask what version of Windows you are running!
I was a big fan of OE and recently created a Virtual Machine running
Windows XP so that I could access my old OE files.
I prefer Gmail to OE but would still prefer OE to Agent for Usenet if
it was available. Agent is far more powerful and flexible in many ways
but I don't make any use of that power and flexibility which I find
cumbersome at times and would prefer the relative simplicity of OE.
For posting on Newsgroups and receiving mail, I use OE on windows XP
along with the mypal.exe browser.
Otherwise I use Thunderbird and Chrome on Windws 10 and sometimes
Linux Mint for stuff like the Covid stats. As Mint displays
spreadsheets automatically whereas 10 expects you to have
Excel installed.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <mrt65mFgl0lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:40:54 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
A question that might also have been asked by the CEO could have been rCYWhy
have we suddenly got so many crooked postmasters when we never had this
sort of number before the new system was brought in?rCY.
That's a much easier question for people to answer, for example "because
before the new system they were stealing and getting away with it".
That assumes there was either no or no effective auditing of individual PO accounts, which is hard to believe as bookkeeping has existed for
millennia.
There is a much fuller account of the actual 26 page contract, including
the actual details on here
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contract-proves-always-knew-how-post-office-fujitsu-brian-rogers-fcmi-5xgze
After loading the page a pop-up may appear asking "if you want read more". Just click on the pop-up and it will eventually go away.
quote:
The "Reconciliation Service: Service Description" wasn't a technical
manual buried in an archive. It was a formal contract, reviewed by
both parties' commercial and operations teams, signed by senior
executives, and marked "CONTRACT CONTROLLED."
:unquote
As noted in the article, failures were actually expected. With up to 100
per month in the case of failed debit card transactions.
Which then raises the question as to what happened during the period
between the introduction of Horizon in 1999, and the signing of the
contract in 2006
On 04/01/2026 12:29, Spike wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <mrt65mFgl0lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:40:54 on Sat, 3
Jan 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
A question that might also have been asked by the CEO could have been
rCYWhy have we suddenly got so many crooked postmasters when we never
had this sort of number before the new system was brought in?rCY.
That's a much easier question for people to answer, for example
"because before the new system they were stealing and getting away
with it".
That assumes there was either no or no effective auditing of individual
PO accounts, which is hard to believe as bookkeeping has existed for
millennia.
It has been formally acknowledged that Fujitsu could remotely access the postmaster / sub postmasterrCOs system, alter transaction data, and adjust end of day balance data either without leaving any footprint whatsoever
or leaving a footprint that made it look like the alteration(s) had been
made by the postmaster / sub postmaster.
Such a system cannot exist alongside the phrase "effective auditing"
From a legal point of view, Fujitsu's position is indefensible.
Man with one clock knows the time.
Man with two clocks never knows the time.
I used to have two atomic clocks, side by side in the same rack. I think
they used to periodically check with each other that they were showing
the same time.
According to AI even without that, they should have been within a few
femtoseconds of each other.
So one of them was wrong ?
But *which* one ?
On 08/01/2026 14:01, billy bookcase wrote:
There is a much fuller account of the actual 26 page contract, including
the actual details on here
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contract-proves-always-knew-how-post-office-fujitsu-brian-rogers-fcmi-5xgze
After loading the page a pop-up may appear asking "if you want read more". >> Just click on the pop-up and it will eventually go away.
quote:
The "Reconciliation Service: Service Description" wasn't a technical
manual buried in an archive. It was a formal contract, reviewed by
both parties' commercial and operations teams, signed by senior
executives, and marked "CONTRACT CONTROLLED."
:unquote
As noted in the article, failures were actually expected. With up to 100
per month in the case of failed debit card transactions.
Which then raises the question as to what happened during the period
between the introduction of Horizon in 1999, and the signing of the
contract in 2006
The original document is available on the inquiry web-site:
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/18503/download?token=68Z4_QJD
Regards
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from
as recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't
mean just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation.
e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time
immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens ><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from
as recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't
mean just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation. >>e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time >>immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English
asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A local >councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party were
going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents (which >considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's homes is >far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that the shortage >started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the shortage was caused >by the policies of the previous administration, and that simply making a >decision to recruit more foster parents is the solution. The possibility
that the shortage of foster parents might have been caused by something else >which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to have escaped him. As does the
fact that the previous administration was also actively seeking to recruit >more foster parents to address the shortage, but without a lot of success.
In message <es42mkt3p1cgvreoa2gn696b3sada19mah@4ax.com>, at 14:48:53 on
Fri, 9 Jan 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from as >>>recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't mean >>>just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation.
e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time >>>immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English >>asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A
local councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party >>were going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents >>(which considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's >>homes is far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that
the shortage started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the >>shortage was caused by the policies of the previous administration, and >>that simply making a decision to recruit more foster parents is the >>solution. The possibility that the shortage of foster parents might have >>been caused by something else which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to >>have escaped him. As does the fact that the previous administration was >>also actively seeking to recruit more foster parents to address the >>shortage, but without a lot of success.
Politicians suffer from a form of blindness, which causes them to think
stuff first happened the moment they discovered it existed.
For example saying, as one did at a very prestigious conference around
2010: "As we all know, email has only been available for about five
years, but it's now time to consider regulating it..."
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from
as recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't
mean just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation. >>e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time >>immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English
asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A local councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party were
going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents (which considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's homes is far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that the shortage started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the shortage was caused by the policies of the previous administration, and that simply making a decision to recruit more foster parents is the solution. The possibility
that the shortage of foster parents might have been caused by something else which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to have escaped him. As does the
fact that the previous administration was also actively seeking to recruit more foster parents to address the shortage, but without a lot of success.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from
as recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't
mean just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation.
e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time
immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English
asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A local councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party were
going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents (which considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's homes is far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that the shortage started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the shortage was caused by the policies of the previous administration, and that simply making a decision to recruit more foster parents is the solution. The possibility
that the shortage of foster parents might have been caused by something else which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to have escaped him. As does the
fact that the previous administration was also actively seeking to recruit more foster parents to address the shortage, but without a lot of success.
Mark
On 9 Jan 2026 at 14:48:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from
as recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't
mean just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation. >>> e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time
immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English
asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A local
councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party were
going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents (which
considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's homes is >> far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that the shortage
started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the shortage was caused >> by the policies of the previous administration, and that simply making a
decision to recruit more foster parents is the solution. The possibility
that the shortage of foster parents might have been caused by something else >> which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to have escaped him. As does the
fact that the previous administration was also actively seeking to recruit >> more foster parents to address the shortage, but without a lot of success.
You'd almost wonder whether the politician concerned was being entirely frank >and truthful. Perish the thought!
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:31:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <es42mkt3p1cgvreoa2gn696b3sada19mah@4ax.com>, at 14:48:53 on
Fri, 9 Jan 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from as >>>>recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't mean >>>>just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation. >>>>e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time >>>>immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English >>>asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A
local councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party >>>were going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents >>>(which considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's >>>homes is far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that
the shortage started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the >>>shortage was caused by the policies of the previous administration, and >>>that simply making a decision to recruit more foster parents is the >>>solution. The possibility that the shortage of foster parents might have >>>been caused by something else which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to >>>have escaped him. As does the fact that the previous administration was >>>also actively seeking to recruit more foster parents to address the >>>shortage, but without a lot of success.
Politicians suffer from a form of blindness, which causes them to think
stuff first happened the moment they discovered it existed.
For example saying, as one did at a very prestigious conference around
2010: "As we all know, email has only been available for about five
years, but it's now time to consider regulating it..."
You think that's bad ? Some businesses have yet to begin using email.
On 07/01/2026 10:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n94slkd9vc8ru81cqlfmqejpu5ri49fv26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 13:30:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ggolkpvriv5jc4mnd80qdf43lertcqvk0@4ax.com...
Outlook Express - WOW!
I know. I can't even post pictures of kittens !
I'm almost afraid to ask what version of Windows you are running!
I was a big fan of OE and recently created a Virtual Machine running
Windows XP so that I could access my old OE files.
I prefer Gmail to OE but would still prefer OE to Agent for Usenet if
it was available. Agent is far more powerful and flexible in many ways
but I don't make any use of that power and flexibility which I find
cumbersome at times and would prefer the relative simplicity of OE.
For posting on Newsgroups and receiving mail, I use OE on windows XP
along with the mypal.exe browser.
Otherwise I use Thunderbird and Chrome on Windws 10 and sometimes
Linux Mint for stuff like the Covid stats. As Mint displays
spreadsheets automatically whereas 10 expects you to have
Excel installed.
Respectfully, Windows just needs to be instructed which program to use to open
Excel files - it doesn't actually need Excel installed. (LibreOffice and ONLYOFFICE are two such programs that can be used to open Office files. Others are available.)
As for using OE, have you looked at OE Classic (oeclassic.com) which runs on modern, supported versions of Windows?
Regards
S.P. (who is not affiliated in any way with any of the programs mentioned herein)
On 9 Jan 2026 17:12:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2026 at 14:48:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensYou'd almost wonder whether the politician concerned was being entirely frank
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I do find it interesting how basic facts known to many people from
as recent as "less than 30 years ago" become lost so quickly. I don't
mean just to throw shade on the Post Office, it's a general observation. >>>> e.g. people think things have been "ancient traditions since time
immemorial" and it turns out they were invented during living memory.
Examples include the ploughman's lunch and the start of the English
asparagus season.
Even more recent things still escape the memories of some people. A local >>> councillor recently posted on social media to claim that his party were
going to solve the problem of a severe shortage of foster parents (which >>> considerably drives up costs, as putting children into children's homes is >>> far more expensive than fostering). He correctly stated that the shortage >>> started in 2020. But he then went on to assert that the shortage was caused >>> by the policies of the previous administration, and that simply making a >>> decision to recruit more foster parents is the solution. The possibility >>> that the shortage of foster parents might have been caused by something else
which, famously, happened in 2020 seems to have escaped him. As does the >>> fact that the previous administration was also actively seeking to recruit >>> more foster parents to address the shortage, but without a lot of success. >>
and truthful. Perish the thought!
I actually think he genuinely believes it. He really thinks that the
shortage of foster parents is the result of the previous administration preferring to put children into children's homes. And, while I don't think he's actually forgotten about the Covid pandemic, I do think he has completely failed to consider what the long term consequences of it have been.
But then, this is also the councillor with the current worst attendance record (the only one worse resigned last year), and, when he did manage to turn up at a committee meeting for a change, went on social media to declare it a waste of time.
Mark
Fujitsu's Europe Chief, Paul Patterson, has acknowledged that they
failed to disclose bugs identified as early as 1999 and that this is
crucial evidence that was withheld.
He has also admitted that Fujitsu "helped the Post Office in their prosecutions".-a As expert witnesses, the role of Fujitsu employees was
to provide their specialised knowledge in an objective and independent manner.-a Their duty was to the court, not to the Post Office.
From a legal point of view, Fujitsu's position is indefensible.
The crux of the issue is how we quantify reasonable doubt, confidence
in the software system. This is where software quality stats,
standards and audits should have come in, but don't appear to have
been considered. The computer was considered God.
I respectfully disagree.-a IMO, the crux of the matter is that Fujitsu prioritised their financial relationship with the Post Office over their duty to the Courts.
My view is that the criminal justice system was at fault by not
protecting defendants from an unreasonable "computer says no"
argument. This is an ongoing issue. The criminal justice system still
allows obviously technically unreliable systems to be used to
prosecute and convict innocent people. Throwing Vennells or other PO
employs under the bus may satisfy people's lust for vengeance, but it
does little to stop similar things happening in future.
Fujitsu had a legal obligation to say, "There are known major bugs in Horizon that can give rise to issues similar to this but we do not
believe this has happened in this case because..."
What they said, in effect, was, "There is no way this could have
happened other than by dishonesty on the part of the postmaster / sub postmaster."
The legal system relies on the impartiality of expert witnesses.-a In
cases such as Horizon,
it can be difficult to instruct one's own expert
witness especially when Fujitsu levied a charge for producing reports
that would be necessary for such experts to be able to audit
transactions in an attempt to find errors.
It is easy to use hindsight and say "One of the postmasters should have stumped up the cash to get the reports from Fujitsu, paid a forensic accountant to scrutinise the reports and then instructed an expert
witness to produce a statement for the court" but who is paying for that
on the chance that they might find something?
The postmasters all thought their cases were unique and that they were
the only one having this problem.
The real solution is rules and regulations to control how technicalRules and regulations already exist.-a They were ignored.-a Adding to the list of rules and regulations that are going to be ignored is unlikely,
evidence is considered.
IMO, to provide a workable solution.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:msc3iaF184oU3@mid.individual.net...
On 07/01/2026 10:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n94slkd9vc8ru81cqlfmqejpu5ri49fv26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 13:30:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ggolkpvriv5jc4mnd80qdf43lertcqvk0@4ax.com...
Outlook Express - WOW!
I know. I can't even post pictures of kittens !
I'm almost afraid to ask what version of Windows you are running!
I was a big fan of OE and recently created a Virtual Machine running
Windows XP so that I could access my old OE files.
I prefer Gmail to OE but would still prefer OE to Agent for Usenet if
it was available. Agent is far more powerful and flexible in many ways >>>> but I don't make any use of that power and flexibility which I find
cumbersome at times and would prefer the relative simplicity of OE.
For posting on Newsgroups and receiving mail, I use OE on windows XP
along with the mypal.exe browser.
Otherwise I use Thunderbird and Chrome on Windws 10 and sometimes
Linux Mint for stuff like the Covid stats. As Mint displays
spreadsheets automatically whereas 10 expects you to have
Excel installed.
Respectfully, Windows just needs to be instructed which program to use to open
Excel files - it doesn't actually need Excel installed. (LibreOffice and
ONLYOFFICE are two such programs that can be used to open Office files.
Others are available.)
Sorry my mistake
That should of course have read
As Mint displays spreadsheets automatically; whereas 10 expects you to have >either Excel, LibreOffice, ONLYOFFICE, or any one of a number of other >programs installed, first.
As for using OE, have you looked at OE Classic (oeclassic.com) which runs on >> modern, supported versions of Windows?
With respect, all that "supported" actually means is that Microsoft are still >issuing bug fixes for both this latest version of Windows and the latest version
of Internet Explorer, or whatever their browser is called nowadays.
By the time Microsoft introduce their latest OS, they will have fixed most of >the most egregious bugs in the previous version; while nobody was ever forced >to use Internet Explorer in the first place.
So that support is no longer necessary.
More especially as I only ever use OE to read emails; not to click on links,
While all that "Classic" means is "this works"the way it used to work" before >Microsoft f*cked it up.
Windows 10 also screws up the aspect ratio of the Freecell window
making the cards all the wrong shape,.
bb
Regards
S.P. (who is not affiliated in any way with any of the programs mentioned
herein)
It's known as Edge nowadays and most reviewers consider it as at least
as good if not better than Chrome (they are based on the same
underlying code.) A long-time user of Chrome, I have recently started
using Edge as I got fed up with way that Chrome hogs resources. Edge
is not perfect but it does seem to demand less resources.
Firefox was flavour of the month for a long time but has now faded
into insignificance to a level of less than 5% market share [1] and
its developers, the Mozilla Foundation, are facing severe financial difficulties. Opera has all but disappeared with just 2% of the
market.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:31:01 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,842 |
| Posted today: | 1 |