The Lemon Fool

swill453 wrote:I'm not sure that's (entirely) the case. The implication from what I've read is that the access which was stated to be impossible but turned out not to be, was the techs accessing something physically in the sub post offices.

That was confirmed just now on the BBC 6pm news. An email from Angela van den Bogerd was read out at the enquiry which stated "I found out this week that Fujitsu can actually put an entry into a branch account remotely".

Certainly doesn't sound like a database that Fujitsu were responsible for managing.

Scott.

Nimrod103 wrote:Over the last few days there has been a semantic argument as to whether there were bugs in the software and whether they should be called bugs. I don’t follow the significance of this because the accusation is that there were back doors into the programme and that Horizon staff were changing figures without the postmasters knowing it. It doesn’t seem to me that that is a bug, that is an intentional bit of programming.

and even if it WERE unintentional ie a bug - or alternatively a "feature" if the bug can be viewed as useful - it still existed and was used by Horizon staff it seems.

So indeed - the core is that that it was claimed that this was impossible but it was being done.

It can be safely assumed that former PO CEO Paula Vennells, who will be giving evidence on 22nd May for three days, was watching the near-vivisection of Angela van den Bogerd today and yesterday.

It was no surprise that the adversarial KCs gave her a hard time at the close, but it was illuminating that Jason Beer KC for the Inquiry laid into her so cuttingly and so early. He went as far as he could without appearing adversarial - a superb performance by an Inquiry specialist at the top of his game.

Ms Vennells will now know what lies in store for her.

stewamax wrote:Ms Vennells will now know what lies in store for her.

Lets hope it's Rwanda

I noted

stewamax wrote:It can be safely assumed that former PO CEO Paula Vennells, who will be giving evidence on 22nd May for three days, was watching the near-vivisection of Angela van den Bogerd today and yesterday.

Leading counsel to the Inquiry Jason Beer KC at least gave her around 15 minutes of comparative ease before tearing her to pieces.
Yesterday 3rd, he gave no such concession to PO solicitor Jarnail Singh who was accused of being a liar right from the outset.

And the day before, when external solicitor Martin Smith repeatedly disclaimed the slightest responsibility for anything despite having spent umpteen years with Cartwright King, Junior counsel to the Inquiry Justin Blake was finally goaded to ask "Were you on work experience?"
I choked laughing (perhaps I can sue someone).

Followers of this sad saga will know that ‘disclosure’ of documents by POL to the defence describing faults in Horizon is a major issue.
When Rod Ismay was being grilled today 10th, he whinged many times of having been swamped in documentation by the Inquiry.
Getting a bit fed up of this litany of whinges, Leading Counsel Jason Beer KC commented dryly that “the Inquiry tries to give full disclosure of documents to witnesses.”

There are moves by big business to make it even harder for cases such as this to succeed:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... l-to-court

Of course, if big businesses owned their mistakes, litigation funding wouldn't be necessary in the first place!

Watis

Private Eye has a free article this week mocking a series of fawning acknowledgements by Post Office insiders of Paula Vennells' CBE.

But the best bit is buried amongst them; a scathing critique emailed by an as-yet-unrevealed outsider pointing out how underserved the gong is, and warning about the all-round embarrassment to be faced when the truth comes out. Oops!

stewamax wrote:“the Inquiry tries to give full disclosure of documents to witnesses.”

The Inquiry is in the public eye. If it were to engage in lawyers' normal sharp practice - like withholding evidence that should be disclosed - it would be noticed.

vandefrosty wrote:Private Eye has a free article this week mocking a series of fawning acknowledgements by Post Office insiders of Paula Vennells' CBE.

But the best bit is buried amongst them; a scathing critique emailed by an as-yet-unrevealed outsider pointing out how underserved the gong is, and warning about the all-round embarrassment to be faced when the truth comes out. Oops!

I think we're all looking forward to Vennell's appearance. I'm not a gambling man but I'd put a tenner on her throwing a sickie.

Redmires wrote:

vandefrosty wrote:Private Eye has a free article this week mocking a series of fawning acknowledgements by Post Office insiders of Paula Vennells' CBE.

But the best bit is buried amongst them; a scathing critique emailed by an as-yet-unrevealed outsider pointing out how underserved the gong is, and warning about the all-round embarrassment to be faced when the truth comes out. Oops!

I think we're all looking forward to Vennell's appearance. I'm not a gambling man but I'd put a tenner on her throwing a sickie.

Being a woman of the cloth I'm sure the Good Lord will show the inquiry how misguided all her critics have been.


<virtual tongue-in-cheek smiley>

I'm surprised that more comments on former lawyer for the Post Office Jarnail Singh haven't been expressed.

He definitely didn't pass the sniff test.

I expect he will retire shortly cos I can't see many people want to employ a solicitor that can't save a document, doesn't know very basic IT works, can't print a document and wants us to believe that a document printed from his computer after receiving an email addressed to him wasn't printed by him despite the evidence in the footer of said document. Plus he never saw it either.

Attention to detail zero.

Singh described how he proposed material (rather than cosmetic) changes to Gareth Jenkins’ witness statement.
This is serious enough for a witness of fact (an ‘ordinary’ witness) but Jenkins was giving evidence as an expert witness, and Singh’s amendments would appear to amount to a grave subornation of perjury – inducing a witness to give false evidence, and Jenkins’ acceptance of these amendments (which he knew to be misleading) would be perjury.