ITVx Issues

I had the same issue on fire stick, go to settings in itvx app (bottom icon on the left) and update postcode. Mine worked straight away after doing this
 
Just watched it back to back. Glad I don’t own Fujitsu stock.
 
If he hasn’t done so already, create an account and/or sign in. I had exactly the same problem on my TV. Signing in to my account fixed it.
 
was an absolute awesome series. such a terrible miscarriage of justice. There is a great write up in Computer Weekly

Post Office Horizon scandal explained: Everything you need to know | Computer Weekly

Computer Weekly has investigated the Post Office Horizon scandal since 2008 and is, in fact, part of the story. This guide covers essential information about the scandal.
www.computerweekly.com www.computerweekly.com

I would make one observation - anyone has the power to bring a private prosecution, it's just that the CPS has the power to take them over and discontinue them. Something it typically does when the alleged victims bring the case... but not in the case of the post office.
 
I have the same problem. Mr Bates vs the Post Office isn't on my ITVX. Anyone know? I have a Humax Freesat.
 
I had the same problem, but signing into the itvx app solved it.. Good luck
 
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.
 
Roy Bloom said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mottie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep, I was years ahead of the Post Office and Fujitsu.
I'm still gobsmacked how their system was so fallible to netwotk outages.
Network, espcially to remote villages, even in the early 2,000's was still patchy, and maybe still is.
I'm guessing the system designers did not take the field conditions into account.
It probably worked faultlessly within a test enviroment.

Banks at the time had no such difficulties.
Sure they had netwrok outages, but that didn't create massive errors.
 
You don't need to guess or pretend you know what the issues were Roy. its fully detailed:


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.

The technology used was completely different. Banks were largely using centralised mainframes during the same period, not distributed client server database based systems.
 
motorbiking said:
You don't need to guess or pretend you know what the issues were Roy. its fully detailed:
Click to expand...
You've demonstrated that it's you that have no idea what you're talking about.


motorbiking said:

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.
Click to expand...
That deals with the legal issues, judgement, etc,not the technical problems.
It doesn't deal with the techinical issues.
But I will admit my assesment was based on the scant detail included in the film.
It's obvoious you don't know what you're talking about because you said:
The issue is not that the system had bugs or gaps in the non-functional requirements. design and testing.
Click to expand...
If there were no bugs or errors in the system it would have worked without any problems. :rolleyes:
You think there were ghosts in the machiner changing the transactions? :rolleyes:

Perhaps you'd like to give us your asseement of the merits of the system Horizon? :rolleyes:


motorbiking said:
The technology used was completely different. Banks were largely using centralised mainframes during the same period, not distributed client server database based systems.
Click to expand...
I was not comparing the actual technology used, I was merely saying that the technical issues were possible to avoid.
Even with a client - server ssytem, there's no need for all and any transaction to be uploaded each time. Often, in the early days, the days transactions were kept on site, and only uploaded overnight.
True client - server systems did not become possible until the network became fully reliable. And in some parts of the country, certainly in remote areas, that might still be problematic.
An unrelaible network in a purely client-server system would seriously impact on the customer satisfaction rating, and no-one would find that acceptable.

"Sorry Mrs Jones, we can't give you your pension, the computer is down, Try tomorrow. " :rolleyes:
 
The technical appendix includes every detail right down to the oracle DML used to process the transactions.

All systems have bugs 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.
 
motorbiking said:
The technical appendix includes every detail right down to the oracle DML used to process the transactions.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, but it wsn't included on that link you provided.
And I'm not motivated to go and find it.

motorbiking said:
All systems have bugs
Click to expand...
Of course, but bugs and flaws as seriously fundamental as those in Horizon rendered it worse than useless.
And it appeared that no-one was interested in finding out what was going wrong.

motorbiking said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would explain why I stopped the practice of an unofficial unders and overs float as soon as I became aware of it.
I would never have accepted such a contract if I had ever considerd becoming a subpost person.
As I explained, I think it encourages the potential to be dishonest. I'm sure I don't need to explain how or why.
 
There is certainly enough technical detail in the judgement for anyone to work out it wasn't a platform issue.

Others may be interested:

Even today you will find plenty of businesses who do not integrate their payment system to the their finance system. e.g. contactless charges are manually entered on the pad and the account payment marked paid. It's easy to ring up one charge and debit another.

Anyway, back to the story - I'd like to see Vennells lose her CBE.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top