On 13/01/2024 10:26, 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.
> []
It is not a question of where the money went but a question of where the
money came from.
How did £55 000 appear (to later disappear).
It may not be logged going out but it certainly should have been
recorded coming in.
Flop

On 12.1.24 16:54, BrritSki wrote:
> 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.

To be honest having worked in IT for quite a long time myself I am not
that surprised that there was a "back door" but that such a back door
was not evidenced when Fujitsu staff were moving balances to "suspense"
accounts for later reconciliation.

Also having had sub-postpeople as parents I know that the presumption of
the HO audit team was that all such people were thieving lying b*******
who needed to be screwed to the wall to ensure they were not robbing the
PO.

Such inspectors were also almost certainly not retrained for the new
computer system - they were simply told from on high that it was
infallible and anyone implementing a distributed / internet based system
in 1999 needed their heads examined if they actually believed such
infallibility. Sadly T Blair and P Mandelson insisted.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 13.1.24 17:22, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> 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.

They let one of them referee a football match recently you know.

I don't think she was called Grace.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:06:56 +0000, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>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 :(

Extraordinarily, my ex-RN, ex-BIL who was present at those tests, is
and has always been in remarkable good health. Do you remember when it
was fashionable to sell long-life, irradiated food in plastic sachets?
I have often wondered if the nuclear tests had a similar preservative
effect on him.

Nick

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.
>

I miss TNMF, he probably would have known enough to explain the fiasco in
laymen’s terms, as well as scurrilously in his inimitable way.

Mrs McT

In message <48g7qi95n97m2hnjfbvstpfbk503iedee3@4ax.com> at Sun, 14 Jan
2024 11:12:09, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>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

Yes, good question. One would _hope_ that since it's all come to light
they'd have got it back now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if that
is not the case.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum." Translation: "Garbage in, garbage out."

On 14.1.24 11:06, Penny wrote:
> 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 :(
>

Plus the Windrush people.

Plus the blood poisoning people.

And so on.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 15.1.24 19:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <48g7qi95n97m2hnjfbvstpfbk503iedee3@4ax.com> at Sun, 14 Jan
> 2024 11:12:09, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>> 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
>
> Yes, good question. One would _hope_ that since it's all come to light
> they'd have got it back now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if that
> is not the case.

It is not the case. The money was paid in and effectively became
declared profits.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 14.1.24 10:59, Penny 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.

A lot of it seems to be down to the flaky connections. If a transaction
was only half completed online at the next handshake the transaction was
repeated in full and then there was a difference and it looks like the
accounting system could not spot the part duplication.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 14.1.24 11:24, BrritSki wrote:
> 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
>

But that was Fujitsu who were not telling the PO Inspectors about it as
they were outsourced and had no connection to Internal Audit.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:09:00 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> scrawled in
the dust...

>Plus the blood poisoning people.

I think I may have been lucky to escape that one. I knew nothing about it
until I turned up for my first (of about 60) appointment for
plasmapheresis, when the staff took great care to assure me the plasma was
from British sources, and not imported from USA or elsewhere.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 15/01/2024 19:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <48g7qi95n97m2hnjfbvstpfbk503iedee3@4ax.com> at Sun, 14 Jan
> 2024 11:12:09, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>> 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
>
> Yes, good question. One would _hope_ that since it's all come to light
> they'd have got it back now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if that
> is not the case.

Call me old-fashioned (retired from IT 20 years ago) but, Shirley, any
such system should have reconciliation between inventory, sales,
receipts and disbursements? With log files at every step?
--
Mike Headon
R69S R850R
IIIc IIIg FT FTn FT2 EOS450D
e-mail: mike dot headon at enn tee ell world dot com

Mike Headon <porky@YCKMHWA.com> wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 19:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <48g7qi95n97m2hnjfbvstpfbk503iedee3@4ax.com> at Sun, 14 Jan
>> 2024 11:12:09, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>>> 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
>>
>> Yes, good question. One would _hope_ that since it's all come to light
>> they'd have got it back now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if that
>> is not the case.
>
> Call me old-fashioned (retired from IT 20 years ago) but, Shirley, any
> such system should have reconciliation between inventory, sales,
> receipts and disbursements? With log files at every step?

One would have thought that any accountant involved in the whole project
would have insisted upon it!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Mike Headon <porky@YCKMHWA.com> writes:

> On 15/01/2024 19:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <48g7qi95n97m2hnjfbvstpfbk503iedee3@4ax.com> at Sun, 14
>> Jan 2024 11:12:09, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>>> 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
>> Yes, good question. One would _hope_ that since it's all come to
>> light they'd have got it back now, but I wouldn't be at all
>> surprised if that is not the case.
>
> Call me old-fashioned (retired from IT 20 years ago) but, Shirley, any
> such system should have reconciliation between inventory, sales,
> receipts and disbursements? With log files at every step?

You know that, I know that, but I'm sure your experience tells you, as
mine (it were DP not new-fangled IT when I began) does, that the
Gormless Garys who succeeded us and couldn't wait to shove us older,
wiser and more experienced types out of the way, don't know how to write
a spec or devise a thorough testing regime. They all filled their heads
with RAD(ical dude) and 'Agile' (aka make it up as you go along)
methodologies.

I blame the 1980s fad for "a computer in every classroom", and knew even
then that it would all go horribly wrong.

Rosie

On 17.1.24 16:12, Mike Headon wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 19:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <48g7qi95n97m2hnjfbvstpfbk503iedee3@4ax.com> at Sun, 14 Jan
>> 2024 11:12:09, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>>> 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
>>
>> Yes, good question. One would _hope_ that since it's all come to light
>> they'd have got it back now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if
>> that is not the case.
>
> Call me old-fashioned (retired from IT 20 years ago) but, Shirley, any
> such system should have reconciliation between inventory, sales,
> receipts and disbursements? With log files at every step?

You are old-fashioned.

Horizon was originally planned to enable a move away from pension and
other books. The beneficiary would present their "card" for a "swipe"
and this would instruct the PO person to pay out the amount of money to
be handed over - this element was cancelled when it was decided that
doing away with paper money was a good thing and everyone was told they
could only be paid into their bank account.

So ICL did not want to waste the money and encouraged the PO to
repurpose it as a branch accounting system.

Sub-POs do not have "inventory" or for many items "sales" as they are
accepting cash for deposit into PO Giro accounts (sorry sold off) and
items like vehicle licensing and tv licensing and they are simply agents.

What I do not grasp is that I assume Horizon was also used in Post
Office owned outlets (largely now vanished but originally at least one
in each town) - what happened to any differences in those outlets?

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 17.1.24 18:31, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> don't know how to write
> a spec or devise a thorough testing regime.

When I was at work about ummty umm years ago I wrote a detailed testing
regime which we used twice for major upgrades (same underlying software
but major releases so things needed testing).

Having left I learned that my beloved system was replaced about 4 years
later - and they had dug out and re-used my system test routines for the
new software as the use case was unchanged. I am very proud of that.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:11:48 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On 17.1.24 16:12, Mike Headon wrote:
>> On 1
>You are old-fashioned.
>
>Horizon was originally planned to enable a move away from pension and
>other books. The beneficiary would present their "card" for a "swipe"
>and this would instruct the PO person to pay out the amount of money to
>be handed over - this element was cancelled when it was decided that
>doing away with paper money was a good thing and everyone was told they
>could only be paid into their bank account.
>
>So ICL did not want to waste the money and encouraged the PO to
>repurpose it as a branch accounting system.
>
>Sub-POs do not have "inventory" or for many items "sales" as they are
>accepting cash for deposit into PO Giro accounts (sorry sold off) and
>items like vehicle licensing and tv licensing and they are simply agents.
>
>What I do not grasp is that I assume Horizon was also used in Post
>Office owned outlets (largely now vanished but originally at least one
>in each town) - what happened to any differences in those outlets?

Apparently PO owned outlets had no problem The money was checked and
then it was assumed the software made a mistake. Only the private sub
POs were assumed to be cheating, even after warnings were given. There
was inaction and complete lack of care for what went wrong.

On 18.1.24 12:21, Vicky wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:11:48 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17.1.24 16:12, Mike Headon wrote:
>>> On 1
>> You are old-fashioned.
>>
>> Horizon was originally planned to enable a move away from pension and
>> other books. The beneficiary would present their "card" for a "swipe"
>> and this would instruct the PO person to pay out the amount of money to
>> be handed over - this element was cancelled when it was decided that
>> doing away with paper money was a good thing and everyone was told they
>> could only be paid into their bank account.
>>
>> So ICL did not want to waste the money and encouraged the PO to
>> repurpose it as a branch accounting system.
>>
>> Sub-POs do not have "inventory" or for many items "sales" as they are
>> accepting cash for deposit into PO Giro accounts (sorry sold off) and
>> items like vehicle licensing and tv licensing and they are simply agents.
>>
>> What I do not grasp is that I assume Horizon was also used in Post
>> Office owned outlets (largely now vanished but originally at least one
>> in each town) - what happened to any differences in those outlets?
>
> Apparently PO owned outlets had no problem The money was checked and
> then it was assumed the software made a mistake. Only the private sub
> POs were assumed to be cheating, even after warnings were given. There
> was inaction and complete lack of care for what went wrong.

Interesting. I had missed that being reported. However there was a
different management structure between the Crown Offices and sub-post
offices and probably distinct inspectorate teams which obviously did not
communicate. Again poor management practices - there should be common
standards across an organisation - but the inspectors believed that the
sub-postmasters were simply not trustworthy.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

kosmo wrote:

>Horizon was originally planned to enable a move away from pension and
>other books. The beneficiary would present their "card" for a "swipe"
>and this would instruct the PO person to pay out the amount of money to
>be handed over - this element was cancelled when it was decided that
>doing away with paper money was a good thing and everyone was told they
>could only be paid into their bank account.
>
>So ICL did not want to waste the money and encouraged the PO to
>repurpose it as a branch accounting system.
>
>Sub-POs do not have "inventory" or for many items "sales" as they are
>accepting cash for deposit into PO Giro accounts (sorry sold off) and
>items like vehicle licensing and tv licensing and they are simply agents.
>
>What I do not grasp is that I assume Horizon was also used in Post
>Office owned outlets (largely now vanished but originally at least one
>in each town) - what happened to any differences in those outlets?

That last point was a question that I think was asked at the
recent Select Committee session, but I believe it was one of many
areas they claimed no knowledge of.

Another issue that seems to have come to light is that the tool
used to generate reports from Horizon, many of which have been
presented to the Enquiry, doesn't appear to present the data
verbatim, but will, for instance, remove duplicate entries, which
themselves are one of the potential causes of incorrect balances.

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 18.1.24 13:39, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Another issue that seems to have come to light is that the tool
> used to generate reports from Horizon, many of which have been
> presented to the Enquiry, doesn't appear to present the data
> verbatim, but will, for instance, remove duplicate entries, which
> themselves are one of the potential causes of incorrect balances.

Yes - I did see that. The individual stated that they had only seen
Excel reports and therefore could not be certain that the information
had not been filtered in some way - but the system I worked with
pre-retirement was capable of being directly linked to from Excel (sql
database so if you know what you were doing and had the passwords you
can link in directly).

I accept that there is a potential for filtering but I would be
surprised if Horizon did not have a direct to Excel extraction. Xero
which my charity uses has that facility - and you cannot therefore tell
if it is "unfiltered" or "real".

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics