Wrong time, wrong place for you then Roy. If only you could have been head of the post office during those years instead of the school tuck shop.I watched Bates V PO last night, streamed via t'internet.
I was gobsmacked at several issues in the system installed.
In the late 1980's, I became aware of an unofficial 'overs and unders' cash box kept in the safe at an establishment under my control.
I happened to be there as they were closing, and the cashier brought it my attention that the day's shortfall was more than was available in the 'overs and unders' cashbox.
I stopped that practice immediately at all sites under my control for several reasons.
It was not official policy, it was not in the JD, it was not in the contract of Employment, and in my opinion encouraged the potential for dishonesty, and it removed an important Performance Measure.
From then on, it was a bank the overs and bank the unders. It's for the organisation to stand any loss, etc, not the employees.
I did get a lot of flack from my line manager, but my policy was established throughout the chain.
Later in the mid 90's I was responsible for a system for centralising performance data, which at that time was only establishment specific. But I designed and collected the information using dial-up and an Excel spreadsheet. The macro used to take a couple of hours to run.
Later in the run up to the millenium I was responsible for introduction of a new system, and I specified that the system must allow a cash-up and declaration of the 'takings' before indicating what the takings should be. This was to avoid an unofficial 'overs and unders' float.
But even then there were sufficient error checking processes and proceedings to avoid network outages to create errors.
The Post Office Horizon system was fundamentally and massively flawed. The technicality and the logicality existed to avoid such issues.
Yep, I was years ahead of the Post Office and Fujitsu.Wrong time, wrong place for you then Roy. If only you could have been head of the post office during those years instead of the school tuck shop.
You've demonstrated that it's you that have no idea what you're talking about.You don't need to guess or pretend you know what the issues were Roy. its fully detailed:
That deals with the legal issues, judgement, etc,not the technical problems.
The issue is not that the system had bugs or gaps in the non-functional requirements. design and testing. The issue was the post office didn't trust the sub-postmasters, abused its powers of prosecution and control and destroyed people's lives.
If there were no bugs or errors in the system it would have worked without any problems.The issue is not that the system had bugs or gaps in the non-functional requirements. design and testing.
I was not comparing the actual technology used, I was merely saying that the technical issues were possible to avoid.The technology used was completely different. Banks were largely using centralised mainframes during the same period, not distributed client server database based systems.
ITVX is not supported on Humax Freesat PVRs. ITV Hub catchup was available on some units but no more since ITV changed to X. https://www.freesat.co.uk/help/4k-tv-box/service-updates/itv-hub-availabilityI have the same problem. Mr Bates vs the Post Office isn't on my ITVX. Anyone know? I have a Humax Freesat.
Quite possibly, but it wsn't included on that link you provided.The technical appendix includes every detail right down to the oracle DML used to process the transactions.
Of course, but bugs and flaws as seriously fundamental as those in Horizon rendered it worse than useless.All systems have bugs
That would explain why I stopped the practice of an unofficial unders and overs float as soon as I became aware of it.not all suppliers secretly cover them up and not all customers/employers have such a fundamental distrust that they choose to blame innocent people and literally destroy their lives.