Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
staff were profiting personally from this.
Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
cash too ?
Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
phone which is clearly not feasible.
I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
highest order.

BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
> staff were profiting personally from this.
> Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
> that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
> The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
> and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
> This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
> was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
> sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
> cash too ?
> Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
> transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
> terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
> cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
> This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
> phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
> that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
> phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
> have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
> phone which is clearly not feasible.
> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
> system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
> as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
> highest order.
>

What baffles me is why we have had to wait for any real action until a TV
drama was made about this whole charade. The arrogance, stupidity,
stubbornness that leaves the most reluctant mule in the dust, absolute lies
and dishonesty (just like the PO were accusing the SPM’s of themselves) is
totally beyond me. The whole business was brought to the attention of those
who would listen (and to those who should have listened too) many years
ago; there have been at least two investigative series of programmes on
Radio Four over the years and I feel, that like many Umrats, we have been
well aware of the whole sorry business and are disgusted that justice and a
fair hearing has been denied all those SPM’s for far too long!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> writes:

> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of
> this system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could
> login as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of
> the highest order.

It's ICL as was, innit.

I never worked with ICL kit but I knew quite a few people who knew their
way around their GEORGE 3. Some of them even spoke well of it.

I did cut my teeth on an NCR Century 100 whose Cobol compiler wouldn't
function unless you told it it was an ICL 1906. No, me neither.

Rosie

Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes:

> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>> Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
>> that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
>> The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
>> and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
>> This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
>> was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
>> sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
>> cash too ?
>> Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
>> transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
>> terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
>> cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
>> This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
>> phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
>> that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
>> phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
>> have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
>> phone which is clearly not feasible.
>> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
>> system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
>> as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
>> highest order.
>>
>
> What baffles me is why we have had to wait for any real action until a TV
> drama was made about this whole charade.

I agree. I seem to have known about it since forever. Radio 4 did a very
good investigative series some years ago and it wasn't new even then. I
can't believe that I could have been aware of the scandal while senior
people in government weren't. But perhaps it's this new breed of special
advisers that only tells the politicos, who are definitely not of the
calibre they once were regardless of party affiliation, what they want
to hear, or rather, what the advisers want them to know.

Rosie

On 12/01/2024 19:34, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes:
>
>> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>>> Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
>>> that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
>>> The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
>>> and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
>>> This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
>>> was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
>>> sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
>>> cash too ?
>>> Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
>>> transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
>>> terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
>>> cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
>>> This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
>>> phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
>>> that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
>>> phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
>>> have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
>>> phone which is clearly not feasible.
>>> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
>>> system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
>>> as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
>>> highest order.
>>>
>>
>> What baffles me is why we have had to wait for any real action until a TV
>> drama was made about this whole charade.
>
> I agree. I seem to have known about it since forever. Radio 4 did a very
> good investigative series some years ago and it wasn't new even then. I
> can't believe that I could have been aware of the scandal while senior
> people in government weren't. But perhaps it's this new breed of special
> advisers that only tells the politicos, who are definitely not of the
> calibre they once were regardless of party affiliation, what they want
> to hear, or rather, what the advisers want them to know.

Given that the government had already announced an Inquiry into it, I
don't think they can claim ignorance. The trouble is that, until the
dramatisation stirred things up, they seemed quite content to allow the
wheels of justice to grind very, very slowly, showing how much
importance they placed on the individuals who had had their lives ruined
by it.

--
Best wishes, Serena
In baiting a mouse trap with cheese, always leave room for the mouse. (Saki)

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki
<rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>staff were profiting personally from this.
>Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
>that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
>The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
>and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
>This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
>was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
>sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
>cash too ?
>Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
>transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
>terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
>cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
>This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
>phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
>that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
>phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
>have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
>phone which is clearly not feasible.
>I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
>system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
>as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
>highest order.

That's a very interesting series of thoughts and I hope it will be
developed in either the enquiry, the police investigation or both. I
didn't listen to all the Nick Wallis series on BBC Radio 4 (though I'm
pleased to see that after all the hard slog investigation over the
years (and despite other non-entities trying to claim credit for
exposing the scandal) he has been credited in the current ITV series)
but did they ever answer the question of where the missing money went?

It's a bit simplistic to say as they did, well, the postmasters must
have stolen it. It was electronic money so not quite the same as
having a bunch of fivers and going one for you and one for me.

Nick

On 12/01/2024 19:26, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of
>> this system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could
>> login as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of
>> the highest order.
>
> It's ICL as was, innit.
>
> I never worked with ICL kit but I knew quite a few people who knew their
> way around their GEORGE 3. Some of them even spoke well of it.
>
> I did cut my teeth on an NCR Century 100 whose Cobol compiler wouldn't
> function unless you told it it was an ICL 1906. No, me neither.
>
> Rosie

The ICL 1900 series, named after the year the hardware was obcolete as
opposed to the successor 2900 series, named after the year the software
was expected to work.

john

Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 19:34, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>> Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes:
>>
>>> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>>>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>>>> Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
>>>> that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
>>>> The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
>>>> and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
>>>> This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
>>>> was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
>>>> sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
>>>> cash too ?
>>>> Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
>>>> transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
>>>> terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
>>>> cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
>>>> This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
>>>> phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
>>>> that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
>>>> phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
>>>> have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
>>>> phone which is clearly not feasible.
>>>> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
>>>> system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
>>>> as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
>>>> highest order.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What baffles me is why we have had to wait for any real action until a TV
>>> drama was made about this whole charade.
>>
>> I agree. I seem to have known about it since forever. Radio 4 did a very
>> good investigative series some years ago and it wasn't new even then. I
>> can't believe that I could have been aware of the scandal while senior
>> people in government weren't. But perhaps it's this new breed of special
>> advisers that only tells the politicos, who are definitely not of the
>> calibre they once were regardless of party affiliation, what they want
>> to hear, or rather, what the advisers want them to know.
>
> Given that the government had already announced an Inquiry into it, I
> don't think they can claim ignorance. The trouble is that, until the
> dramatisation stirred things up, they seemed quite content to allow the
> wheels of justice to grind very, very slowly, showing how much
> importance they placed on the individuals who had had their lives ruined
> by it.
>
>

Two series on R4 clearly wasn’t enough then …..

Mrs McT

In message <0cl3qihskj9ircjlohq7r5chj81p95f9bo@4ax.com> at Sat, 13 Jan
2024 00:21:58, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki
><rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
>but did they ever answer the question of where the missing money went?

I think the main answer is that it wasn't really missing.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx

In message <uns826$3dmab$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:39:34,
Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]
>dramatisation stirred things up, they seemed quite content to allow the
>wheels of justice to grind very, very slowly, showing how much

Harrumph; they do. By later this month, I'll have been RUI for over a
year (_after_ six months on bail).

>importance they placed on the individuals who had had their lives
>ruined by it.
>
Yes, it does seem to have been a terrible thing. As another has said,
revealed on Radio 4 some while ago; seems has to be an ITV telly thing
before anyone does anything, at least other than hoping sufficient of
the victims will die off first.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx

On 13/01/2024 00:21, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki
> <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:

> <snip thoughts>
>
> That's a very interesting series of thoughts and I hope it will be
> developed in either the enquiry, the police investigation or both. I
> didn't listen to all the Nick Wallis series on BBC Radio 4

The above snipped text was what I sent to Nick on his excellent PO
Scandal website. I'll report back if he replies.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki wrote:

> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
> staff were profiting personally from this.

I've seen this alleged example of the Horizon software:

Public Function ReverseSign(d)
If d < 0 Then
d = Abs(d)
Else
d = d - (d * 2)
End If
ReverseSign = d
End Function

I can only think of three reasons why someone would have written that.
1/ They were being paid by the number of lines of software produced.
2/ They wanted to slow the system down in the hope of being paid more
later on to speed it up.
3/ (If this is typical of the whole system.) They wanted to obfuscate the
software sufficiently that no one could debug it or work out what it
really does. Which might support Brritters' hypothesis.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

On 13/01/2024 14:56, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki wrote:
>
>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>
> I've seen this alleged example of the Horizon software:
>
> Public Function ReverseSign(d)
> If d < 0 Then
> d = Abs(d)
> Else
> d = d - (d * 2)
> End If
> ReverseSign = d
> End Function
>
> I can only think of three reasons why someone would have written that.
> 1/ They were being paid by the number of lines of software produced.
> 2/ They wanted to slow the system down in the hope of being paid more
> later on to speed it up.
> 3/ (If this is typical of the whole system.) They wanted to obfuscate the
> software sufficiently that no one could debug it or work out what it
> really does. Which might support Brritters' hypothesis.
>
4/ A joke?

--
Cheers
Clive

On 13/01/2024 10:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, it does seem to have been a terrible thing. As another has said,
> revealed on Radio 4 some while ago; seems has to be an ITV telly thing
> before anyone does anything, at least other than hoping sufficient of
> the victims will die off first.

Probably best on ITV. There's a lot of anti-BBC (not Auntie BBC)
sentiment stoked by the right wing press oligarchy, and it would be
easier to downplay such a docudrama were it a BBC production.

--
Cheers
Clive

Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> writes:

> On 13/01/2024 10:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yes, it does seem to have been a terrible thing. As another has
>> said, revealed on Radio 4 some while ago; seems has to be an ITV
>> telly thing before anyone does anything, at least other than hoping
>> sufficient of the victims will die off first.
>
> Probably best on ITV. There's a lot of anti-BBC (not Auntie BBC)
> sentiment stoked by the right wing press oligarchy, and it would be
> easier to downplay such a docudrama were it a BBC production.

The rot set in when they went woke by letting that rather iffy Kenneth
Kendall read the news in 1955. Come to think of it, wasn't that when ITV
started and the BBC debased its standards to compete? I mean, using
sensationalist storylines in The Archers? That's unthinkable. And now
they're not only letting young fillies read the news, they let them talk
about the cricket too. World's gone to rack and ruin, I tell you.

Rosie

On 13/01/2024 17:22, Rosie Mitchell wrote:

> The rot set in when they went woke by letting that rather iffy Kenneth
> Kendall read the news in 1955. Come to think of it, wasn't that when ITV
> started and the BBC debased its standards to compete? I mean, using
> sensationalist storylines in The Archers? That's unthinkable. And now
> they're not only letting young fillies read the news, they let them talk
> about the cricket too. World's gone to rack and ruin, I tell you.

Brava!

--
Steveski

In message <87zfx9rvv9.fsf@golgonooza.co.uk> at Sat, 13 Jan 2024
17:22:50, Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> writes
>Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 13/01/2024 10:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Yes, it does seem to have been a terrible thing. As another has
>>> said, revealed on Radio 4 some while ago; seems has to be an ITV
>>> telly thing before anyone does anything, at least other than hoping
>>> sufficient of the victims will die off first.
>>
>> Probably best on ITV. There's a lot of anti-BBC (not Auntie BBC)
>> sentiment stoked by the right wing press oligarchy, and it would be
>> easier to downplay such a docudrama were it a BBC production.

Indeed. That's why I said ITV. (I find the anti-BBC sentiment saddening,
as, despite much that's wrong with it, I'm very fond of Auntie.)
>
>The rot set in when they went woke by letting that rather iffy Kenneth
>Kendall read the news in 1955. Come to think of it, wasn't that when ITV
>started and the BBC debased its standards to compete? I mean, using
>sensationalist storylines in The Archers? That's unthinkable. And now
>they're not only letting young fillies read the news, they let them talk
>about the cricket too. World's gone to rack and ruin, I tell you.
>
>Rosie
>
>
Not only that, but they actually _play_ it! And to rub salt in the
wound, do better than the chaps! (Or was that footy? I'm not really a
follower of either, though will admit I am aware that the footy team
_are_ on the whole doing better.)

"... and cheer when they've won -
and practice beforehand, which ruins the fun!"
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I know people who worry more about the health consequences of drinking a coffee
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>staff were profiting personally from this.
>Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
>that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
>The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
>and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
>This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
>was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
>sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
>cash too ?
>Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
>transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
>terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
>cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
>This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
>phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
>that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
>phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
>have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
>phone which is clearly not feasible.
>I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
>system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
>as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
>highest order.

I've been wondering about the IT guys too. I haven't seen anything to
explain just what they were doing. In my mind they were conjuring money out
of thin air and then showing it as a debit on the system. The mythical
money was then clawed back from the innocent postmasters and added to the
coffers of The Post Office - stolen from the innocents.

At the very least, this magic money should be used to pay the court costs
for the Alliance.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 10:29:54 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>In message <uns826$3dmab$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:39:34,
>Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>[]
>>dramatisation stirred things up, they seemed quite content to allow the
>>wheels of justice to grind very, very slowly, showing how much
>
>Harrumph; they do. By later this month, I'll have been RUI for over a
>year (_after_ six months on bail).
>
>>importance they placed on the individuals who had had their lives
>>ruined by it.
>>
>Yes, it does seem to have been a terrible thing. As another has said,
>revealed on Radio 4 some while ago; seems has to be an ITV telly thing
>before anyone does anything, at least other than hoping sufficient of
>the victims will die off first.

That sounds familiar...
How many of the young soldiers and sailors who were involved in the
Christmas Island nuclear bomb tests are still alive, having suffered a
lifetime of strange illnesses? Not many now, I guess, yet their families
have continued to seek compensation - and failed to get any :(

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>In message <0cl3qihskj9ircjlohq7r5chj81p95f9bo@4ax.com> at Sat, 13 Jan
>2024 00:21:58, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>>On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki
>><rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>[]
>>but did they ever answer the question of where the missing money went?
>
>I think the main answer is that it wasn't really missing.
>[]

OK, how about a follow-up? What happened to the money paid in by
those whose accounts were claimed to be lacking, in an attempt to
get things to show a balance?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:21:58 +0000, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
scrawled in the dust...

>did they ever answer the question of where the missing money went?
>
>It's a bit simplistic to say as they did, well, the postmasters must
>have stolen it. It was electronic money so not quite the same as
>having a bunch of fivers and going one for you and one for me.

The money never existed, but had been accounted for, so it fluttered into
being out of the personal savings of the Sub Post Masters/Mistresses.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 14/01/2024 10:59, Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> <snip>
>
> I've been wondering about the IT guys too. I haven't seen anything to
> explain just what they were doing. In my mind they were conjuring money out
> of thin air and then showing it as a debit on the system.

The claim was that they were needed to fix the errors that they had seen
in the Horizon accounts and no doubt they were doing that at least part
of the time.
But the implications are:
1. that they knew there were errors in the system
2. that they weren't spotting all of them
3. that there were logs that they had access to that showed what those
error werre
4. that those logs have never been shown at any trials so far afaik
5. that the system was open to abuse as there was no audit trail for
these changes

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>> Say they sent an accomplice to a branch who completed a "transaction"
>> that resulted in them being handed £1,000.
>> The backroom guy knows when this is done, logs in to that SPM account
>> and changes the Horizon record to be only £100.
>> This only works of course if the "transaction" changes too - if a card
>> was used and directly debited there's no gain, but maybe there are other
>> sorts of transactions where the alteration affects the source of the
>> cash too ?
>> Or did Horizon terminals that were offline have the ability to store the
>> transaction data for later transmission to the bank ? Did Horizon
>> terminals have UPS so they would operate locally in the event of a power
>> cut which could also be a means of fraudulently obtaining cash ?
>> This may be stupid speculation, but I remember decades back when mobile
>> phones were still bricks, having an argument with our telecomms team
>> that it was obvious to me that the mobile network "knew" where every
>> phone was and could track them, as otherwise when one was called you'd
>> have to broadcast a signal on every cell in the country to find the
>> phone which is clearly not feasible.
>> I worked in IT for almost 40 years ago and find the architecture of this
>> system mind-blowing that there was a backdoor where techies could login
>> as SPMs and there was no audit trail. Fraudulent incompetence of the
>> highest order.
>
> I've been wondering about the IT guys too. I haven't seen anything to
> explain just what they were doing. In my mind they were conjuring money out
> of thin air and then showing it as a debit on the system. The mythical
> money was then clawed back from the innocent postmasters and added to the
> coffers of The Post Office - stolen from the innocents.
>
> At the very least, this magic money should be used to pay the court costs
> for the Alliance.

As the PO is owned by the gummint, as in all similar cases, the Tax Payer
ends up paying the whole Farago (or is that ‘Fargo’?)

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 13/01/2024 17:03, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 13/01/2024 14:56, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>>
>> I've seen this alleged example of the Horizon software:
>>
>> Public Function ReverseSign(d)
>> If d < 0 Then
>>      d = Abs(d)
>>    Else
>>      d = d - (d * 2)
>>    End If
>> ReverseSign = d
>> End Function
>>
>> I can only think of three reasons why someone would have written that.
>> 1/ They were being paid by the number of lines of software produced.
>> 2/ They wanted to slow the system down in the hope of being paid more
>> later on to speed it up.
>> 3/ (If this is typical of the whole system.) They wanted to obfuscate the
>> software sufficiently that no one could debug it or work out what it
>> really does. Which might support Brritters' hypothesis.
>>
> 4/ A joke?
>
5/ A bored programmer trying to make life interesting and regain the
will to live.

--
Ric

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:
> On 13/01/2024 17:03, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 13/01/2024 14:56, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:54:44 +0000, BrritSki wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody seems to have mentioned the possibility that the Fujitsu backroom
>>>> staff were profiting personally from this.
>>>
>>> I've seen this alleged example of the Horizon software:
>>>
>>> Public Function ReverseSign(d)
>>> If d < 0 Then
>>>      d = Abs(d)
>>>    Else
>>>      d = d - (d * 2)
>>>    End If
>>> ReverseSign = d
>>> End Function
>>>
>>> I can only think of three reasons why someone would have written that.
>>> 1/ They were being paid by the number of lines of software produced.
>>> 2/ They wanted to slow the system down in the hope of being paid more
>>> later on to speed it up.
>>> 3/ (If this is typical of the whole system.) They wanted to obfuscate the
>>> software sufficiently that no one could debug it or work out what it
>>> really does. Which might support Brritters' hypothesis.
>>>
>> 4/ A joke?
>>
> 5/ A bored programmer trying to make life interesting and regain the
> will to live.
>

Someone of no account?

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan