back to article We told Post Office about system problems at the highest level, Fujitsu tells Horizon Inquiry

Fujitsu has said it continually told the Post Office about problems with Horizon, the computer system at the center of one of the UK's widest miscarriages of justice, as its client prosecuted branch managers for accounting discrepancies. Speaking at the closing statements of the statutory inquiry into the complex computer …

  1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Dog Fight

    So they are now both trying to throw the other party under a bus.

    Bastards the lot of them.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Dog Fight

      May the bus run over both of them.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Dog Fight

        It probably will, but actual proof that Post Office senior staff and board were being informed of the problems means that - in the words of a New Zealand enquiry judge - they've been presenting "an organised litany of lies" - in this case to avoid criminal prosecution rather than to simply deflect responsiblity

        1. Paul Kinsler

          Re: an organised litany of lies

          Only a minor point of pedantry, for which I apologise, but the exact phrasing used by Peter Mahon was -

          "orchestrated litany of lies"

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: an organised litany of lies

            Raising a beer for the late Peter Mahon, whose report came as a nasty non-coverup shock. Of course he was properly and suitably punished for his impudence, but there was no erasing that phrase from memory.

    2. graemep
      Mushroom

      Re: Dog Fight

      So Fujitsu must have informed the courts of the problems and the unreliability of the system, given their employees gave evidence on this in court, right?

      1. Hawkeye Pierce

        Re: Dog Fight

        This would be the same Fujitsu employees who the Judge in the Horizon trial on 16th December 2019 stated:

        I have very grave concerns regarding the voracity of evidence given by Fujitsu employees to other courts in previous proceedings about the known existence of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system

        Hope that answers your (rhetorical) question.

        1. WageSlave5678

          Re: Dog Fight

          VOracity or VEracity?

          I guess both could work there ...

    3. Tron Silver badge

      Re: Dog Fight

      ICL/Fujitsu should have been asked to examine each case forensically, before any legal action took place, to check for bugs and fix them. But they couldn't force the PO to do that. The PO staff (and their lawyers) who pursued the Horizon victims, should go to prison. The government should fork out compensation to all victims, rapidly. Fining the PO, now run by different people, will just damage a service that the UK relies on. And it is barely coping as it is. I've had more items go missing this month than usual and stuff is taking an age to arrive. The universal service/letter post should be taken back into state ownership and run as a public service. A huge number of livelihoods depend upon the post being delivered properly. The UK really is broken - shafted by decades of shite government, corruption and incompetence. Start fixing it by fixing the PO and putting some of those responsible for the suffering of Horizon victims behind bars where they belong.

      If any more bits of Britain collapse, assuming anything out there still works, we should treat Labour the way we treated the Tories and get rid of them too. And never vote for either party again. We deserve better than both of them. Starmer should understand that he began his regime in the last chance saloon and has no margin for error. Because we are all sick of our governments failing us in every possible way, over and over again.

      1. Adrian Harvey

        Re: Dog Fight

        I agree with much of what you say, but think I should note that the PO and the Royal Mail are NOT the same organisation. The organisation that uses Horizon and messed up so many lives is not the one that delivers the mail - it's the one that runs the post offices and counters, where you can buy stamps and get drivers licenses, etc. The delivery is done by Royal Mail, and they are a different organisation, have never touched Horizon, and have their own problems. Your issues with mail delivery are issues with a different company from the one on trial here.

        I know it's weird that they are separate companies, but it's been that way since the passage of the Post Office Act in 1969 (and arguably before that as Royal Mail and Post office branches were both parts of the General Post Office)

        1. nobody who matters Silver badge

          Re: Dog Fight

          I think you will find that the formation of 'Royal Mail' as a separate entity didn't happen until 1987 when The Post Office was split into three - Subscription Services, Royal Mail and Parcelforce. All still came under the umbrella of 'The Post Office' though.

          In 1988, Royal Mail was further subdivided by separating the post offices themselves into a new section named 'Post Office Counters Ltd', but was still a wholly owned subsidiary of 'The Post Office'. The Post Office later became renamed as Royal Mail Group Ltd

          Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, although they operated as independent companies within Royal Mail Group, did not become completely separate companies until 1st April 2012.

          Horizon was commissioned, developed during the late 1990s and installed in 1999 whilst POL and Royal Mail were both still part of Royal Mail Group.

      2. UnknownUnknown

        Re: Dog Fight

        You do realise that Post Office and Royal Mail are separate companies ? Express separated by Vince Cable and Coalition Government

        PO - Arm’s length state operated company

        Rm - Flogged off a down years back, like many state and former state postal operators in terminal decline - largely driven by deregulation in the postal marketplace (scum like Evri and InPost) and about to be further acquired by a suspect Czech billionaire/asset stripper with Russian connections and a majority owner of Post.NL

      3. WageSlave5678

        Re: Dog Fight

        Careful what you wish for - the next largest party is likely to be Reform,

        and I wouldn't trust those chancers and grifters to run a pub

        (where arguably they should at least have some experience)

        let alone be allowed anywhere near any form of government

    4. Philo T Farnsworth Silver badge

      Re: Dog Fight

      If they (Fujitsu) knew of the problems, why didn't they fix them?

      Am I missing something?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dog Fight

        Simple, the process goes like this...

        Fujitsu tech :We've found some bugs in our code, they could cause errors in reporting models X, Y and Z

        Post Office exec: Noncence we've seen no issues

        FujitsuTech: Well they are there, we need to fix them and so need a contract variaton.

        Post Office: This is just an attempt to get more money out of us, I demand to speak to your executives

        Fujitsu Exec: It appears there is an issue, it will cost $A to fix.

        Post Office Exec: Lets discuss it over Dinner at Expensive Resturant K

        [Next day]

        Fujitsu Exec: As discussed we need to additional time to confirm our results and the bug status...

        Post Office exec: execllent:, Please report your findings back after the start of the new finacial year, I've got my eye on a new yacht and the annual bonus will be here soon...

      2. UnknownUnknown

        Re: Dog Fight

        Minimal Viable Product ??

      3. The Real SteveP

        Re: Dog Fight

        ...and why did they give evidence against postmasters in court, knowing their software could cause the problems the postmasters encountered?

  2. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Time to produce the audit trail

    Telling the enquiry is one thing

    Providing the emails is another - and anyone in a CYA situation like this will have kept them

    Letting the enquiry run its length with Post Office claiming they didn't know and then presenting evidence that they DID know all along is a true Perry Mason moment and if it's true exposes the utter venality of Vennells and the rest of the board

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Time to produce the audit trail

      Been there, done that with a job in previous life.

      Company response was to mark me for redundancy with a tiny payout, but when my Solicitor showed all the Slack/Teams messages, zoom call recordings and email, the tiny payout became a years' salary to settle and not be forced to a tribunal!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Time to produce the audit trail

        I've just forwarded a contract term from a CCS contract that says the business shall not recover money from salaries without staff agreement to some internally. Which they did, leaving some with almost nothing. You need to ensure you've something in your back pocket when it all goes wrong, as it will.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Time to produce the audit trail

      "and then presenting evidence that they DID know all along"

      The shameful thing is, they're not presenting it in evidence, they're presenting it in a closing statement. If they had this evidence the correct time to come out with it would have been while the enquiry was taking evidence.

      Also, are they saying they didn't know the prosecutions were going on? If they did - and it seems overwhelmingly likely that they did - then why didn't they intervene? Public responsibility should have taken precedence over responsibility to a client, otherwise they're risking charges of conspiracy to perverting the course of justice.

      1. Scotech

        Re: Time to produce the audit trail

        They definitely did know, because their staff were called as expert witnesses to testify to the workings of the system in a number of prosecutions. Note that it was just the workings though - the law only required them to demonstrate that the computer system was capable of providing the digital evidence submitted to the court, not to attest to the accuracy of that evidence. There was a presumption in favour of digital evidence that means the burden of proof was effectively reversed in these cases, and it's up to the accused party to prove the evidence is incorrect, rather than the other way around. To my knowledge, I think that might even still be the case in English criminal law.

        1. a_builder

          Re: Time to produce the audit trail

          Not so.

          Gareth Jenkins was allegedly an ‘expert witness’ he had an obligation to both sides to be fair and impartial.

          He had an obligation to flag BEDS.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Time to produce the audit trail

            Absolutely.

          2. Scotech

            Re: Time to produce the audit trail

            That he did - I never said that they fulfilled their obligations, I was only pointing out how limited those obligations were. His failure to indicate that the system had known issues that could affect the accuracy of the evidence sourced from it was deeply dishonest, if not outright perjury. But the law never required him to actually determine if the outputs of the system actually were accurate, only that the system had been designed to output accurate data. Its the equivalent of asking an accountant to verify that accounting standards were followed, versus asking them to verify that to the best of their knowledge, a set of accounts are true and accurate. Those are completely different questions, and it doesn't follow that just because the answer to one is true, that the other one must also be true.

          3. Tim99 Silver badge

            Re: Time to produce the audit trail

            A long time back I, too, was an expert witness. We were considered to be a "servant of the court" and, indeed, impartial - Giving our "Expert Opinion". As a result, we; along with the accused, prosecution, defence, judge, jury, and court officers; were allowed to remain in court throughout the trial. This was because we might hear evidence that could alter our opinion.

            A normal witness was expected to give examined evidence, and not be present at any other time to avoid "contamination". Under English law members of the public are also normally allowed in the public gallery throughout a trial (For some it was a hobby).

        2. nobody who matters Silver badge

          Re: Time to produce the audit trail

          We have discussed Gareth Jenkins before, and I think that what became clear from his time facing the enquiry was that he was not made aware of his duty of impartiality, and that he had effectively been controlled by Jarnail Singh who was leading the Post Office Limited own legal team. In hindsight, he should not have been considered an 'Expert Witness'.

          1. Terry 6 Silver badge

            Re: Time to produce the audit trail

            But that doesn't absolve him from failing to tell the court the "whole truth" - which even if it's not part of the swearing in anymore ( isn't it?) is pretty obviously a major part of giving evidence and wll known to be so.

            1. nobody who matters Silver badge

              Re: Time to produce the audit trail

              I had the feeling that (at the time) he felt he was telling the whole truth. Indeed he didn't change his view of Horizon when challenged during his appearance at the enquiry.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Time to produce the audit trail

            You seem to have overlooked important evidence at the inquiry. Liar Jenkins did claim he hadn't been given details of his responsibilities as an expert witness to be impartial, honest and so on. He recanted that claim the next day when he was shown the emails he sent acknowledging he had received that info. At which point his selective amnesia from the previous day was instantly cured.

            Even if Jenkins hadn't been given that info from PO or Fujshitsu, he could and should have found that out for himself. For anyone in that situation asking their own solicitor would be the obvious thing to do: "I'm going to be an expert witness in a criminal trial and nobody's told me anything. What are my responsibilities?". Any responsible expert witness would do that, if only to make sure they didn't say or do something that could get them into trouble with the court. If Jenkins didn't do that, it was another of his Epic Fails.

            That said, I agree he should never have served as an expert witness.

            1. nobody who matters Silver badge

              Re: Time to produce the audit trail

              I very much had the impression that the PO lawyers failed to impress his duty of impartiality on him, and regardless of what was put to him in any email (and I do not regard a simple email as being an acceptable way to instruct someone who is due to serve as an important witness in a criminal trial), and seeing and hearing the appearance of Jarnail Singh, I am reasonably satisfied that Jenkins was led by the nose and believed in the evidence he gave in court. Whilst accepting that he had recieved the instructions relating to his duties to the court, he still appeared not to have taken them in, which was a position that suited the PO side.

              There is also the very important fact that he continued to insist that his opinion was that the Horizon system was "robust", even when he was challenged at the inquiry.

              I don't think he would have given any different answers regardless. He was plainly mistaken in his faith in the Horizon software, and was plainly not suitable to act as an expert witness, but I have no doubt he was pushed forward by Singh principally because Singh could rely on him giving the replies that Singh and the Post Office wanted the court to hear.

      2. lsces

        Re: Time to produce the audit trail

        "Public responsibility should have taken precedence over responsibility to a client, otherwise they're risking charges of conspiracy to perverting the course of justice."

        And that should extend to the prosecution solicitors who MUST have been aware of the sheer volume of cases. That all of these seem to have been dealt with in isolation just shows how bad the whole legal system is today?

        1. a_builder

          Re: Time to produce the audit trail

          The prosecution of some of the legal teams is a must.

          Some of the ‘let’s not look under that rock’ stuff is bad advice as there was an obligation to look under those rocks and report back.

      3. a_builder

        Re: Time to produce the audit trail

        As Fujitsu’s ‘expert witness’ was by pretending to be an expert witness a servant of the court.

        So he had an absolute obligation to be even handed and tell the court of the BEDS issues.

        As did anyone else in the organisation who knew of BEDS that were likely to impact on trials.

        The interesting bit is the nobody has *yet* found the call centre scripts or fingered who organised for the clean up.

        One thing that is blindingly obvious is that there was an organised cover up both at PO and Fujitsu and a lot of material was deep sixed.

      4. david 12 Silver badge

        Re: Time to produce the audit trail

        The shameful thing is, they're not presenting it in evidence

        From the article:

        in relation to whom the inquiry has received unequivocal evidence

        Sometimes people just see what they want to see, and read what they want to read

    3. Fred Daggy Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Time to produce the audit trail

      Would that not constitute grounds for perjury (or similar)? Depending upon the legal status of the inquiry? Sometimes its an offshoot of Contempt of Parliament, sometimes directly perjury and other times not anything at all.

      1. nobody who matters Silver badge

        Re: Time to produce the audit trail

        The legal status is that it is a Public Enquiry, not a Court of Law so no, it wouldn't be perjury.

        1. eldakka

          Re: Time to produce the audit trail

          > The legal status is that it is a Public Enquiry, not a Court of Law so no, it wouldn't be perjury.

          It is a statutory enquiry that has the power to compel (summons) witnesses to give evidence under oath and if they refuse the summons they can be arrested (once a warrant is issued for contempt for not complying with the summons) and otherwise criminally prosecuted.

          Witnesses to the enquiry take the same oath to tell the truth as witnesses in a trial do. The broadcast of the questioning includes the witness taking the oath to tell the truth, and in some cases - where the witness being called is already under suspicion of criminal activity or actively being investigated by the police (e.g. Gareth Jenkins (youtube video of his testimony) from Fujitsu is under investigation for perjury in the criminal trials that he gave evidence in) - after taking that oath the Char of the enquiry also reads the witness their rights regarding self-incrimination.

          They absolutely can be prosecuted for perjury.

          However, the specific statements being referred to here are closing statements by the Barristers (lawyers), who are not witnesses and thus are not under oath, as is true for legal counsel in a criminal or civil trial. This does not mean they are allowed to lie, they are under professional obligations that can result in them being dis-barred and/or otherwise sanctioned, but it is not perjury.

          1. nobody who matters Silver badge

            Re: Time to produce the audit trail

            Sorry, I was thinking it was a non-statutory enquiry - I hadn't previously taken in that it was reclassified as a statutory inquiry in 2021.

            1. Mike Pellatt

              Re: Time to produce the audit trail

              Something else that wouldn't have occurred without Sir Alan Bates standing his ground

        2. R Soul Silver badge

          Re: Time to produce the audit trail

          Witnesses from the Post Office and Fujshitu perjured themselves and perverted the course of justice in the criminal trials of innocent subpostmasters, None of those evil scumbags have spent time in jail - or had their collars felt.

          1. Steve Channell
            Flame

            In defense of Gareth

            Post Office counters brought a case against a sub-postmaster to the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court) with the express intent of making an example, including a full team of barristers and solicitors for the prosecution, while the sub-postmaster chose to represent himself.

            The sub-postmaster highlighted an example that he believed to be conclusive proof that the system was defective, but there were scenarios where it could be normal:

            1) Messages were transmitted (via UDP) between counter 1 & 2 were first written to disk by counter 2 (idle device) while counter 1 (single CPU) was concerned with counter transactions

            2) Session-move key was used to transfer the session to another counter (e.g. to use weighing scales), but cancelled.

            Gareth's evidence related to the specific scenarios mentioned in defense, he was not cross examined or asked about other defects : The UK courts rely on the adversarial principle if you don't cross examine, doubt is not considered. The judge could have asked questions, but it is likely they were peeved by the professional discourtesy of not engaging a barrister.

            Had the case been reported to police, a solicitor would have been appointed (who would seek legal funds from Federation of sub-postmasters, and/or professional indemnity insurance); and CPS would have considered evidence before seeking prosecution. This didn't happen because POCL used crown-agency status to investigate and prosecute, choosing to bypass crown court and seek trial at highest court (only appeal to supreme court can override the Old Bailey, and only if a legal precedent is needed). Application for leave to appeal was not sought.

            It was a miscarriage of justice, but not because Gareth didn't volunteer an answer to a question that was not asked.

            1. eldakka

              Re: In defense of Gareth

              > Gareth's evidence related to the specific scenarios mentioned in defense, he was not cross examined or asked about other defects : The UK courts rely on the adversarial principle if you don't cross examine, doubt is not considered. The judge could have asked questions, but it is likely they were peeved by the professional discourtesy of not engaging a barrister.

              That only applies to a 'fact' witness, not an expert witness.

              An expert witness - which is what Gareth Jenkins was presented as - produces a report and submits that report as part of their witness statement.

              That report produced by an expert is required to be made on the basis of assisting the court, which means it is supposed to cover things like known issues, caveats, etc. It should have a discussoin about known issues and why they do or do not apply in this instance and so on. An expert witness is required to go far beyond just answering 'the question' like a fact witness would.

              And that's the point with respect to Mr. Jenkins, that he was never properly advised of this 'extra' requirements an expert witness needs to perform.

              Expert Evidence - The Crown Prosecution Service:

              The Duty of an Expert Witness

              The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions - see Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 Part 19. (CrimPR 19.

              CrimPR 19.2(3)(d) also obliges all experts to disclose to the party instructing them anything (of which the expert is aware) that might reasonably be thought capable of undermining the expert’s opinion or detracting from their credibility or impartiality.

              ...

              3. The expert is impartial

              The expert must be able to provide impartial, unbiased, objective evidence on the matters within their field of expertise. This is reinforced by Rule 19.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules which provides that an expert has an overriding duty to give opinion evidence which is objective and unbiased.

              ...

              4. The expert's evidence is reliable

              There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence, or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

              The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.

              In satisfying itself that there is a sufficiently reliable basis for expert evidence to be admitted, the court will be expected to have regard to Criminal Practice Directions 2023 at 7.1.2which states:

              "7.1.2Factors which the court may take into account in determining the reliability of expert opinion, and especially of expert scientific opinion, include:

              the extent and quality of the data on which the expert’s opinion is based, and the validity of the methods by which they were obtained;

              the validity of the methodology employed by the expert;

              if the expert’s opinion relies on an inference from any findings, whether the opinion properly explains how safe or unsafe the inference is (whether by reference to statistical significance or in other appropriate terms);

              if the expert’s opinion relies on the results of the use of any method (for instance, a test, measurement or survey), whether the opinion takes proper account of matters, such as the degree of precision or margin of uncertainty, affecting the accuracy or reliability of those results;

              the extent to which any material upon which the expert's opinion is based has been reviewed by others with relevant expertise (for instance, in peer- reviewed publications), and the views of those others on that material;

              the extent to which the expert's opinion is based on material falling outside the expert's own field of expertise;

              the completeness of the information which was available to the expert, and whether the expert took account of all relevant information in arriving at the opinion (including information as to the context of any facts to which the opinion relates);

              if there is a range of expert opinion on the matter in question, where in the range the expert's own opinion lies and whether the expert's preference has been properly explained; and

              whether the expert's methods followed established practice in the field and, if they did not, whether the reason for the divergence has been properly explained.

              "7.1.3: In addition, in considering reliability, and especially the reliability of expert scientific opinion, the court must be astute to identify potential flaws in such opinion which detract from its reliability, such as:

              being based on a hypothesis which has not been subjected to sufficient scrutiny (including, where appropriate, experimental or other testing), or which has failed to stand up to scrutiny;

              being based on an unjustifiable assumption;

              being based on flawed data;

              relying on an examination, technique, method or process which was not properly carried out or applied, or was not appropriate for use in the particular case; or

              relying on an inference or conclusion which has not been properly reached."

              1. Steve Channell
                Unhappy

                Re: In defense of Gareth

                Watching evidence to the enquiry, there was a large number if discrepancies reported in the migration from Horizon (store & forward via dial-up ISDN) to Horizon-NG, highlighted by whistleblower.

                The case that was brought to the old bailey was not in-scope of Horizon-NG, so no reasonable expert witness would reference bugs with that rollout.

                The often ignored fact is that Horizon was primarily an EPOS and network system, with replication of all transactions to Post Office each night, but POCL did not implement management information to support counter management or investigation (the cash-account report was initially a transitional system). You shouldn't need an engineer expert system for a criminal case: the evidence should be clear.

        3. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Guy de Loimbard Silver badge

    Liars the lot of them

    Fujitisu: We told you about the bugs

    PO: Our senior leadership was never told

    General Public: So Fujitsu told PO about the bugs, but you supported the prosecutions?

    Seriously, which lying bastard is the most lying bastard? That's what this is now coming down to!

    I hope this is being watched internationally, I also hope there are outcomes declared, significant responsibilities and accountabilities being laid at the feet of actual individuals, not corporations, which in turn could set in place a significant change in the approach to how this type of failing is prosecuted in the future.

    We cannot let this type of thing to continue where faceless executives hide behind their corporate cloaks and deny everything!

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Liars the lot of them

      It's worth noting that "limited liability" only shields shareholders from financial fallout and means at worst they lose everything invested (rather than being hit up for additional monies owed)

      Management is not shielded from criminal prosecution or liability for unlawful actions, despite the marked reluctance of British authorities to do this in the case of large organisations

      1. nematoad Silver badge

        Re: Liars the lot of them

        The trouble with your argument is; there is only one shareholder.

        The government.

        Given that the government has no money of its own if the Post Office fails the Public Purse would be the one to take the hit. Which means us, the British public.

        In the litigation that the Post Office has been engaged in the board and managers were playing with our money, bottomless or otherwise, against Sir Alan Bates and all the sub-postmasters. The top brass of the Post Office had no skin in the game and it showed in the reckless squandering of public money trying to defend the indefensible.

        As has been said the Post Office really was accountable to no-one and it is about time that the hammer of justice was dropped on those, great and small, who were responsible for this fiasco.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Liars the lot of them

          Those running the Post Office at the time should face prosecution for misconduct in public office if sufficient evidence is found. This holds a maximum tariff of life imprisonment.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Liars the lot of them

          No problem with the argument, the management and all those in the know can have their entire wealth forfeited as proceeds of crime…

          The nice thing about it is that these Tory supporters will then benefit from the UK welfare system which they have for decades claimed to be generous…

      2. Tom66

        Re: Liars the lot of them

        The same needs to happen to water company CEO's. I am sick and tired of executives just shirking responsibility here.

        1. Terry 6 Silver badge

          Re: Liars the lot of them

          It's this damned culture of impunity for the people at the top, and their mates.

          If they screw up or get caught out in something they just move on ( and often up) to a new well paid job screwing up some other organisation- or even a government department ( and vice versa). The revolving door for the incompetent but well connected.

    2. TRT

      Re: Liars the lot of them

      There are lies, damned lies and then there's implausible deniability.

    3. Snake Silver badge

      Re: Liars the lot of them

      Sadly I don't see anything unusual here. I'm in a fight with a department of my government to acknowledge the fact that the administration of a care facility wantonly authorized & instructed doctors to ignore EMR system errors, which pretty much directly assisted towards the death of my mate. Their response so far? Ignore that there was even an issue and close the "investigation", an "investigation" where not a single person involved with the incident was interviewed for facts (I asked the doctors involved, they were never contacted at all). After pressing for an appeal, talking to numerous people *and* pressing to get into contact with one of the head counsels of the department, they issued a new ruling: "Still not our problem. But we've forwarded it to a different department".

      And here, I await yet another decision. Whilst someone is dead from bad medicinal policies.

      Finger pointing, dancing sidesteps and ignoring blame...

      did we expect anything less from those who's money is dependent upon keeping the status quo??!

  4. Headley_Grange Silver badge

    Agile a-la Post Office: release any old shit, put users in prison when they find bugs and pay yourself massive bonuses from the savings you make on testing.

    All I want for Christmas is that the cops turn up on the doorsteps of Post Office and Fujitsu directors on Christmas Eve with arrest warrants.

    1. F. Frederick Skitty Silver badge

      It was an old school, Waterfall project that delivered the original flawed system. Later revisions that fixed a lot of the front end issues were Agile and had automated tests, whereas the original system only had manual acceptance tests.

      Part of the problem was that Horizon had originally been commissioned for a government department, and only repurposed for the Post Office when that project was canned. A lot of that additional functionality was shoe horned into an architecture that hadn't been designed for the features required by post office counter services.

  5. s. pam
    Black Helicopters

    How much bigger does Liar's Gate need to be?

    It now appears Subpostmasters will die before receiving their due financial renumeration due to both PO and Fuckjitsu throwing each other in the river. Hence the need to expand Liar's Gate at the Tower to accomodate the sheer weight of bodies!

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: How much bigger does Liar's Gate need to be?

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

    2. nematoad Silver badge

      Re: How much bigger does Liar's Gate need to be?

      I don't think that remuneration is the right word to use here. They are not getting money for services rendered.

      I think that a better word would be redress, giving them back what the Post Office extorted from them.

      Of course that will not help those who have died before they were made whole.

  6. Lee D Silver badge

    The entire entirety, eh?

    Well that sound definitive.

    There I was thinking it was only an entire partiality or a partial entirety.

  7. alain williams Silver badge

    I am surprised that Vennells did not say

    "We took what Fujitsu said about bugs very seriously and engaged Rentokil to fix the issue. What do you mean the wrong sort of bug ?"

    1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: I am surprised that Vennells did not say

      “She has no desire to point the finger at others"

      Except when it came to the sub-postmasters!

      1. Terry 6 Silver badge

        Re: I am surprised that Vennells did not say

        Note that she said that as part of actually doing so, but in a veiled "it wasn't me gov" sort of way.

      2. Rtbcomp

        Re: I am surprised that Vennells did not say

        And then two fingers together.

  8. fg_swe Silver badge

    Lessons ?

    1.) Unnecessarily complex system architecture. Why no online connection to the mainframe?

    2.) Childish belief in said supercomplex system. "Computer is never wrong"

    3.) No proper logging at the postmaster terminals to have a ground truth to check against.

    1. TRT

      Re: Lessons ?

      A simple hardcopy of the data entered / submitted, and held at the branch, would have saved a lot of people a lot of grief. Not every bug would have been evident from that, but it would have been enough to raise doubts about the system's veracity.

      1. fg_swe Silver badge

        Re: Lessons ?

        That is what I meant with 3.

        Multiple independent, machine- and human-readable logging is key to any serious banking operation.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Lessons ?

        Apparently some branches took to keeping hardcopy records manually.

        And prosecution attempts mysteriously disappeared when they made that known.

        Can't have evidence the computer is dodgy appearing in court records now can we?

        1. a_builder

          Re: Lessons ?

          I remember seeing a few counter staff doing that and asking why….werent happy I’d asked.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Lessons ?

          I keep saying there needs to be 2 levels of DR; the computerised one and the manual. Sounds like some branches understood computing better than the P.O.

          As we enter a chaotic period there is a real chance of wholesale infrastructure failures through war be it kinetic or hybrid, trans-national or civil. It would be nice if people didn't starve and that's what will happen if we can't operate without modern infrastructure.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lessons ?

      Regarding your point 2 - that there is a belief that the computer is never wrong, journalist Nick Wallis, on his site postofficescandal.uk, reports that this is currently a legal presumption in the law of England & Wales (I don't know if it also applies in Scotland as well). See:

      https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/proposed-amendment-to-legal-assumption-about-the-reliability-of-computers/

      He states that there is a proposed amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill in the House of Lords which would address this. From reading his post, it appears that computers have been treated as if they are a "mechanical device", and there is a presumption that "mechanical devices" are working properly, if they look to the user like they are working properly. So as long as the computer hasn't crashed, thrown an error code, etc., it is up to the defendant to prove that is wrong, not for the prosecution to demonstrate that it's right.

      If this really is how the Law works in England & Wales (I'm not a lawyer, can't afford to ask one for an expert opinion, etc. etc.) then it clearly needs changing. I hope the amendment makes it into law.

      Edit: See Scotech's earlier post above which references the same thing. I missed it while writing this post.

      1. fg_swe Silver badge

        Banking Software Quality

        I have worked in internet banking in the past and can tell you that very often software has very serious bugs. Sometimes the hardware, too. Including IBM mainframes.

        No software QA to speak of seriously.

        The government should mandate V-Model development standards, similar to what is in force for auto, train, aerospace and medical industries. Essentially, document everything, test everything on multiple levels.

        Also, mandate extensive logging and archiving of logs.

        Proper engineering instead of social science B.S.

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Banking Software Quality

          Yeah, but that takes TIME and it costs MONEY and, most importantly, it makes those at the top RESPONSIBLE.

          We can't have that, now can we ?

          1. fg_swe Silver badge

            A320, Jãger 90, A330, A330, A340, A380, A400M

            V-Model works very effecively for these aircraft. Not a single airframe lost due to software engineering. Full software authority !

            One loss of an A400M due to a mess-up in the loading of calibration parameters end of line.

            If Airbus can do that, likewise SAP and Oracle can do it for the banking industry. It"s a matter of the right regulation and a minor finacial expense in the grand scheme of things.

            1. Tom66

              Re: A320, Jãger 90, A330, A330, A340, A380, A400M

              A320 definitely had a hidden software bug which only appeared in flight and could have resulted in disaster:

              https://avherald.com/h?article=4d97ca46&opt=0

              "the aircraft came to a full stop at 30 ft before the end of the runway" due to a failure of autobraking and loss of thrust reversers, due to a formerly unknown bug in computer synchronisation; basically the flight computers each voted their partners off the bus as high rudder movement wasn't anticipated by the engineers and the computers disagreed on the rudder pedal readings.

              1. Blue Shirt Guy

                Re: A320, Jãger 90, A330, A330, A340, A380, A400M

                "the aircraft came to a full stop at 30 ft before the end of the runway"

                That was more a design issue than a software issue. All the computers correctly shutdown as they realised the input was not something they had been programmed to handle.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: A320, Jãger 90, A330, A330, A340, A380, A400M

                Be good if we learnt those lessons before going all in on AI but I doubt it.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: A320, Jãger 90, A330, A330, A340, A380, A400M

                  Ask Boeing!

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Banking Software Quality

            I think it very likely that those at the top will find they were responsible. Not taking some of them to court will not go down well with the public.

            1. Like a badger

              Re: Banking Software Quality

              "I think it very likely that those at the top will find they were responsible. Not taking some of them to court will not go down well with the public."

              The public inquiry won't lead to criminal charges. Plod will now be starting from a base of inadmissible evidence from the inquiry, trying to get info out of the collection of wilful liars from Fujitsu and the Post Office, all claiming they've forgotten everything. It'll be years before any of the useless gits face trial, I guess few if any will, of those that do there's a good chance they'll get off "for lack of evidence".

              This won't go down well with the public, but neither did cutting winter fuel payments to pensioners just as they put the fuel price "cap" up, nor the refusal to compensate women over raised pension age.

              1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

                Re: Banking Software Quality

                "Plod will now be starting from a base of inadmissible evidence from the inquiry, trying to get info out of the collection of wilful liars from Fujitsu and the Post Office, all claiming they've forgotten everything."

                You may be right, but it strikes me as absurd that the evidence of a statutory enquiry might be inadmissable and if it is admissable then it is surely already sufficient to bring a case and then "I can't remember." is not going to be much of a defence.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Banking Software Quality

          Including how to continue operating without computers and networks.

          1. fg_swe Silver badge

            Telecoms Broken

            There exist approaches of doing just that. Smart patriots already thought about that.

            It boils down to paper money, paper vouchers, ink on finger(India style), truckloads of said tokens. Non connected pocket calculators. Petrol motorbike couriers with a rucksack of USB sticks.

            The computerised banking world takes itself over-important. We can go many weeks without them.

            What it does require is a powerful police, firebrigade and military force acting in concert. Educated and forceful leadership as opposed to wokish idiots, salesmen, half-educated oligarchs, castrates and the like.

      2. TDog

        Re: Lessons ?

        I was once in court over a poll tax bill and challenged the veracity of the statements produced by Birmingham City Council's computer system. An affadavit was produced by their chief IT honcho to the effect that "the system was working in the normal manner...". I challenged that, pointing out that wording merely meant that the system was working as usual, not accurately. The basic response from the lay magistrate was something along the lines of "Oh dear" and the court paused whilst the professional lawyer who advised the court (clerk of the court) informed the magistrate of the consequences of acting on that information - that literally thousands of bills and fines might have to be repayed.

        Eventually I sugested that I could help resolve the issue by agreeing to pay the £21,37 without prejudice and justice continued in its sureal manner. Best half day I ever took off from work - the entertainment value was superb. When I got to the court there were literally over 1000 cases to be heard and only 1 defendant attending. Me. I had anticipated waiting for ever whilst all of the cases for defendants whose names staarted with A-->M were tried but instead the clerk of the court simply said "is anyone here defending a case" and I stood alone. All the others were dealt with as a single entity in abstentia and as having pleaded guilty.

        Ah, the theatre of Justice being seen to be done.

        1. Blue Shirt Guy

          Re: Lessons ?

          "Birmingham City Council's computer system"

          I hear they have the best money IT can buy.

        2. Rtbcomp

          Re: Lessons ?

          I thought if a plea wasn't entered "not guilty" was assumed, as in the case of the Stockport child killings.

          1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: Lessons ?

            I think there is a difference between not pleading and not turning up.

            (Obviously if you are already in custody then "not turning up" isn't an option though.)

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Lessons ?

        "that there is a belief that the computer is never wrong, journalist Nick Wallis, on his site postofficescandal.uk, reports that this is currently a legal presumption in the law of England & Wales"

        ISTR that this was specifically introduced in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) or an amendment and that the prosecutions post-date that.

        1. h3nb45h3r

          Re: Lessons ?

          The Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, section 69 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991-02-01, was repealed by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Section 60 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60 following BT, CPS, Post Office, Department of Trade and Industry and the Inland Revenue writing to the law commission advising that the burden of having to provide evidence to a court that the computer was functioning and without issue was expensive and hampering prosecutions.

          Whilst Horizon was released to the Post Office branches in November 1999 (following live testing at multiple branches during the year), the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was enacted on the 13th April 2000.

          This brought in the 'presumption of computer reliability' to the courts, and effectively meant if you are faced with evidence from a computer, it was up to you to prove it wasn't functioning properly, and good luck if you don't have access to logs, the system design or anything else. Importantly, this was also used to prevent people challenging speed camera's and breathalysers for calibration certification.

          This remains the current status of the law in England and Wales, and the new Data (Use and Access) Bill https://bills.parliament.uk/Publications/57084/Documents/5415 will seek to address this.

          Here are the letters I mentioned above:

          BT: https://startme-uploaded-files.s3.amazonaws.com/Uploaded-file-6368156-2024-1-2-f05b7aa3fe8d758a.pdf

          CPS: https://startme-uploaded-files.s3.amazonaws.com/Uploaded-file-6368156-2024-1-2-7de74e0a6ad88ea1.pdf

          DTI: https://startme-uploaded-files.s3.amazonaws.com/Uploaded-file-6368156-2024-1-2-4db06386ab297b4e.pdf

          Inland Revenue: https://startme-uploaded-files.s3.amazonaws.com/Uploaded-file-6368156-2024-1-2-10324bf082032a89.pdf

          Post Office: https://startme-uploaded-files.s3.amazonaws.com/Uploaded-file-6368156-2024-1-2-60e16cfd87e24754.pdf

      4. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Lessons ?

        My understanding is the same; the law needs changing rapidly, because of AI…

  9. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    And that's only coming out NOW?

  10. vogon00

    Crime and Punishment

    I sincerely hope that one leads to the other in this case. I have long suspected that the issues in a system of that complexity (The 'BEDS' referred to) were known of by both parties, but only understood by Fujitsu, with the PO (at all levels!) not understanding what most of the issues meant.

    I hope several people from both parties are found guilty of criminal behaviour and get hammered both financially and reputation ally without the benefit of Directors liability insurance.

    Some person or group high up seems to have failed in the duty of oversight - probably under pressure from the 'top' - leading to the worker bees being percecuted and in some cases dying as a result.

    That said, the ones I really want to swing are the legal professionals who advised the PO to continue with prosecutions despite the facts, or at least the suspicion of problems. Last I heard was that the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority was investigating quite a few of them....I hope these bastards don't get off Scott free!

    All in all, this is a sorry tale of professional misconduct throughout the corporate structure.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Freeze pension payments

    Is it possible to freeze these Corporate crooks pensions.

    Until report and prosecutions have been carried out, or is there going to be another cover up?

    Reduce the people involved, final pension grades to pay for compensation and the legal costs.

    Gov IT projects at its best.

    No lesson learned and happen due to incompetence and quality of people running these projects

    with people too scared to hold the red flag up. No balls "yes people" with nobody taking ownership.

    Same happening in Government, If I lie to the government it's fraud and I go to jail after waiting 5

    years on remand, if an MP lies it's Politics and nothing happens.

  12. ColinPa Silver badge

    "I didn't know" shows total ignorance

    For any system which is more than one small program, there will always be bugs. Some bugs may be there for decades before being discovered.

    Any improvement will introduce or expose bugs (as you move off the well trodden path).

    Your home software gets updates regularly. The software your run your business on gets updates. These updates are usually fixes to bugs.

    Anyone who thinks software is bug free should be nowhere near software projects. Why should "your software" be any different. They should go and bury their head in the sand and wait for the tide to come in. If I was told there are no defects - I would not believe them.

    I worked on major mainframe software, and we would get charts of defects found over time by month. Initially there was a higher proportion of higher severity defects. Over time this proportion diminished. These sorts of charts should have been available to the Post Office management.

  13. Eclectic Man Silver badge
    Flame

    This is a CROCK OF SHIT*

    And it stinketh greatly.

    The above comments are pretty much saying what everyone thinks about this whole debacle. The fact seems to be that these people have no shame. Blame anyone but 'me', I did 'nothing wrong' (which begs the question: 'did you do anything right?').

    In the words of Dr. Johnson, providing advice to a rival author: 'Have you considered taking up plumbing?'

    *We are officially allowed to say "shit" as the wonderful Mishal Hussein used that word six times on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme interviewing a then Tory minister on why he had used it in the House of Commons. Strangely Paula Vennells was never interviewed by her, I wonder why.

    1. fg_swe Silver badge

      MCAS, Ahr Valley Flood, Covid Scam

      Arguably even worse, but no serious consequences. We live in a corrupt world and many of our leaders think it is OK because Moscow, Beijing and New Dehli are even more corrupt.

  14. ChrisElvidge Silver badge

    A Couple of things

    1) If the software was wrong, and consequently there was no money lost, where did the money the sub-postmasters were forced to (re)pay go?

    2) Today we find that Post Office IT staff were regularly made redundant and then, virtually immediately, rehired on consultant salaries of up to 3 times their original salary. See: https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366617210/Post-Office-IT-department-fired-and-rehired-friends-at-exorbitant-rates-says-former-HR-chief Corruption inside PO?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A Couple of things

      ChrisElvidge wrote:

      "1) If the software was wrong, and consequently there was no money lost, where did the money the sub-postmasters were forced to (re)pay go?"

      A very good question. I am no accountant or lawyer, and perhaps someone else can provide an answer, but I read somewhere that it would have gone into their pool of revenue, and eventually, if it couldn't be attributed, it just appeared as a bit more profit on the bottom line. So that was all good then — for the senior management of the Post Office.

      1. Terry 6 Silver badge

        Re: A Couple of things

        That came out in the inquiry.The subbies were prosecuted for missing money, but the surplus money mysteriously appearing in the PO's holding accounts was just shovelled back into the PO's main account without any proper investigation and there was a strange failure to put 2 and 2 together.

        1. fg_swe Silver badge

          Welcome To Reality

          If you seriously believe that each and every penny can be traced in a banking operation, you are very mistaken.

          It's a beancounter tale designed to grant them authority.

          In the worst case the bank will lose and gain at random due to faulty computer and software. Logs will be incomplete and only god will know the exact truth.

          In the best case a bank will employ well educated, skilled software engineers who can catch the worst bugs by comparing machine readable logs to accounts. The banking software itself has been validated by extensive test batteries as part of V Model development.

          Same for operating system, compilers and hardware. They should be developed using the V Model, too.

          But you know what ? Quick and dirty is cheaper on all of these levels. Half educated oligarch sons will build the operating system, for example.

          Did I tell you about the horrible quality of major Relational database systems ? They are at the heart of modern banking. Lacking V Model development, too.

          1. david 12 Silver badge

            Re: Welcome To Reality

            Users are being prosecuted because of the mismatch between two dollar amounts in one part of the system, but the same mismatch in another part of the same system is being ignored. It's another example of them depending on "facts" which were demonstrably unreliable. That is an audit failure and an IT failure -- those are the people who are supposed to catch it, but also a management failure and an accounting failure, because those are the people who are supposed to have responsibility.

  15. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

    Remarkable front

    .. for Vennels to still be claiming that she knew nothing about it!

    1. nobody who matters Silver badge

      Re: Remarkable front

      Indeed, and she really wasn't told about it that equally is a damning indictment of her unsuitability to be in charge of any large comapny or organisation. It is THE job of the person at the top to know about everything, and to find out about the things they don't know (or are not being told).

      Bottom line is the buck stops with the person at the top.

      1. David 132 Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: Remarkable front

        We’re forever being told that these senior execs deserve their huge pay/bonus packages because “you have to pay this level to attract the best” or “they have huge levels of responsibility”.

        Hmm. This is my sceptical expression.

      2. G.Y.

        Hindenburg Re: Remarkable front

        re: 1914 battle of Tannenberg: "I don't know who won that battle, but I know who would have lost it"

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Remarkable front

        Evidence presented made it clear that she only wanted to be told that things were working correctly and nobody was brave enough to say they weren't for fear of being fired

        Having the Queen of Hearts as CEO is bad for business

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Remarkable front

      "for Vennels to still be claiming that she knew nothing about it!"

      Well she obviously wants to portray that she's the perfect sort of person to go far in the Church doesn't she? I'm sure I read recently about a few roles opening up there recently...

      1. Rtbcomp

        Re: Remarkable front

        My local church has a graveyard, she could go there.

  16. fg_swe Silver badge

    The Bright Side

    What makes the US/European powerful and civilised is that we can openly discuss these affairs. In other nations, stuff like this will be swept under the carpet and secret police would deal with whistleblowers.

    So, glass is 2/3rd full.

    1. seldom

      Re: The Bright Side

      We can talk about it, comment on it and watch it happen again and again and again...

      1. fg_swe Silver badge

        Re: The Bright Side

        Master of corruption BIDEN has been ejected...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The Bright Side

          If you think Biden was corrupt, then be prepared for a rude awakening…

      2. fg_swe Silver badge

        Re: The Bright Side

        Well, I assume you never followed the corruption in other spheres.

        And maybe you fell for foreign B.S. that will of course minimize their problems while inflating ours.

        Check the Russian moon rocket attempt if you want to see reality there.

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: The Bright Side

      Fro this evenings news, it does seem the next occupant of the White House is wanting to change that…

  17. mark l 2 Silver badge

    How much tax payers money went to Fujitsu in supporting Horizon for 16 years yet it still had bugs that could cause accounting discrepancies, and they now say they knew about the bugs and told the PO about.

    How about you actually FIX the bugs as that is what you were getting paid for Fujitsu!!

    They should be repaying back every penny they took for the 'support' of Horizon as it clearly wasn't fit for purpose.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "How about you actually FIX the bugs as that is what you were getting paid for Fujitsu!!"

      In the late 1980s, I worked at a manufacturing firm (*), where the IT system was changed to one that did everything (sales, purchases, raw materials, salaries, product information, bill of materials etc) and when it went live, every relevant employee got some training on their specific modules. Said software came from the same company who supplied the networked thin client terminals and separate database server.

      And then the bugs started to appear. :-(

      As one of the few computer literate managers in the company, (having my own DOS-based PC at home and having used early home computers for various tasks, like connecting to hobbyist bulletin board systems), I eventually found out from our in-house IT manager that our entire installation was an ALPHA site for the software and as such it was not "paid for software" but on free licence. And hence we had to suffer the bugs until someone at the software company decided it was important enough for them to fix.

      (*) The company manufactured good in the UK and sold them across the UK and exported them to about 50 countries worldwide, with an annual turnover of about GBP20 million.

  18. Herring` Silver badge

    Here we go

    I listened along to the Grenfell Inquiry Podcast with the totally excellent Kate Lamble (whom the BBC made redundant like the bastards they have become). The passing of blame amongst the different parties quickly became farcical. A terrible thing happened and it was nobody's fault. Because nobody wanted to ask the questions when knowing the answers and failing to act would make it their fault.

    As for so-called "Expert Witnesses" who stood up in court and, under oath, stated that the data in the Horizon system was 100% correct, well fuck them. Actually this could've been a legitimate use of a distributed blockchain - which is a rare thing indeed.

  19. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Flame

    The bus is departing

    And just 2 things stand in its way

    PO manglement and Fushitshow manglement *

    Lemme see... fushitshow just admitted that the horizons system had bugs and flaws in it and advised the po manglement of this.

    Yet fushitshow expert witnesses stood up in court and said "no problems with horizons"

    well that fushitshow on the hook for perjury at least as the expert witness role is to inform the court of everything good and bad about the subject under discussion.

    But they wont be alone as PO lawyers will be joining them on various charges , followed by Po manglement.

    And to be honest I hope they all get nailed to the wall for this, but that is unlikely as the cops have already admitted that any criminal charges are very unlikely to be pressed before 2027, which means any trial will be 2029 with sentencing in 2030(if you're lucky) followed by various appeals.... which means fushitshow/po manglement will be long dead before any verdict would be handed down.(which I suspect was the whole point of setting up the inquiry in the first place).

    * or maybe we could setup a trolly bus problem... do we run over an innocent 7 yr old kiddie or switch tracks to get po/fushitshow manglement......

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Change Management

    Having run CM for a complex PO system (not in the UK), I find the PO and Fujitsu management statements about knowledge of bugs and errors to be entirely incredulous.

  21. JpChen

    Poor Vennels. “Devastated” she is. She should perhaps look up the meaning of the word:

    Verb. Past tense: “having your life completely ruined by a bunch of incompetent arse covering bastards, just so that they can collect their substantial bonuses”

    1. Winkypop Silver badge

      Yes, “devastated” victims were the end result.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Money

    I don't know Horizon but ...

    While the money was rolling in I don't suppose Fujitsu was too loud about the problems with (Beds??!!). But I wouldn't mind betting that the P.O. setup an environment that dumped everything on the supplier while they chanted not our problem. Public sector procurement / contracting isn't the best for partnerships but there's so much money at stake suppliers have to play a game or they lose.

  23. Vulture@C64

    It's impossible the CEO, Vennels, didn't know what was going on. When you are prosecuting in court, 100s of your staff for alleged theft and bad accounting, this goes to the very top to authorise. It's just inconceivable that she was unaware, as she claims.

    1. G.Y.

      no sword

      There is no sword to break; but I think the CBE medal should be publicly broken with a hammer; I nomintae young prince George for the job.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    BS

    What a pack of disingenuous liars trying to shift blame and deflect responsibility. I'm surprised they're still not trying to blame the sub postmasters. None of the people involved should ever be allowed to hold a position of trust or responsibility ever again.

  25. Jorvik

    It's amazing Rev Paula Vennells didn't get the Bishop of London position, it's perfect for liars and "I didn't know" 'ers.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like