ITVx Issues

[Roy Bloom]

don't call him Jim, you'll get in trouble.

You intentionally, recklessly and knowingly posted what you considered were personal details of another member.
Whether it was accurate or not is not the point, the absolute point is that you intended to cause harm and distress.
Just like sillyboy and Mottie.

 

[Mottie]

Whether it was accurate or not is not the point,

So your name is not Jim then? Who are you calling sillyboy? That sounds more likely to cause harm and distress than calling someone 'Jim'.

 

[Roy Bloom]

If you think Oracle and SAP created their database and ERP application based on a design spec from Fujitsu and that they somehow forgot to consider appropriate rollback of incomplete transactions in their underlying platforms, due to connection failure, you are showing that you are completely clueless. But the bugs in Horizon are irrelevant

If the problems in the system were caused by network outages, and that is what was given in the film as the cause, then clearly any error detection and correction was insufficient.
We are also discussing a system that went live about 25 years ago. Work on it started about 30 years ago. Let's not assume that what we have learned in those 30 years could have been included in the system then There clearly were serious problems in the system which were obviously not irelevant because the system was replaced.

This case has nothing to do with technical issues. It has everything to do with a cover up, breach of separation of duty, presumptions of computer evidence being correct, bad faith and systemic leadership failure that resulted in people's lives being ruined.

You're hopping about again, from pillar to post. I have not discussed the case, from a legal perspective. We were discussing the technical issues. I had little interest in the legal issues. My comments were limited to the system design and operation.

- more than 1800 business people experienced unexplained balance shortfalls
- The Post Office required the sub-postmasters to make good unexplained balance shortfalls
- Whether or not sub-postmasters made good unexplained shortfalls, the Post Office still prosecuted in many cases: for theft, false accounting and fraud. It followed up prosecutions with civil actions, all based on Horizon evidence.
- The government of the day rejected all complaints despite mounting evidence.

Yes I'm aware of the repercussions. I watched the film and have since seen the news.

 

[Roy Bloom]

So your name is not Jim then? Who are you calling sillyboy? That sounds more likely to cause harm and distress than calling someone 'Jim'.

Yet again you're conveniently ignoring all the names that you, and others have assigned me.
You do like to make accusations specifically targetted at me, of the sort that you and others are persitenly guilty of also.
Is it your desire for vendettas that clouds your memory?

 

[motorbiking]

Let me see if I can simplify it.. and perhaps in return, you will stop trying to derail every thread on this forum.

You are probably familiar with contactless card readers if you go to a cafe etc. The waiter takes your order for a coffee and croissant, the order is rung up in the till. The stock consumed etc. Let's say it comes to £6.95. The waiter rings up £6.95 on the contactless machine and you pay. The waiter then closes off the bill.

At cash up it emerges that the contactless payment confirmation did not get through to the till due to network/integration issues. The payment is not credited to the waiters shop's account - though it is still in the receiving bank. He is now 1 coffee and croissant short in his stock and has no corresponding payment to match the sale. He is short £6.95. Now consider the context of the Post office system. It has nothing to do with the provider of the till or the contactless reader, it is the person who failed to design a system taking account that two separate computers in the system could have an integration failure resulting in unmatched payments.

 

[Mottie]

Yet again you're conveniently ignoring all the names that you, and others have assigned me.
You do like to make accusations specifically targetted at me, of the sort that you and others are persitenly guilty of also.
Is it your desire for vendettas that clouds your memory?

I was only asking a question. Was it that difficult to give a yes/no answer?

 

[Roy Bloom]

It has nothing to do with the provider of the till or the contactless reader,

It is, if the supplier of those items is also the main contractor. Even if those items worked perfectly, the main contractor is the one responsible for the system not meeting design specification.
However, if the PO were responsible for providing a resilient network it's not the fault of Fujitsu if they were unaware of the potential problems.
Except of course, they should have designed a system that could cope with network outages.

it is the person who failed to design a system taking account that two separate computers in the system could have an integration failure resulting in unmatched payments.

You're jumping around again, like a rabbit caught in the headlights
You earlier claimed that the system had built in error detection and correction capability.

If you think Oracle and SAP created their database and ERP application based on a design spec from Fujitsu and that they somehow forgot to consider appropriate rollback of incomplete transactions in their underlying platforms, due to connection failure,

 

[Roy Bloom]

I was only asking a question. Was it that difficult to give a yes/no answer?

You're stalking again, snoopy.

 

[Mottie]

You're stalking again, snoopy.

If you say so, Jim.

 

[Roy Bloom]

If you say so, Jim.

I do say so, snoopy.
And you are copying sillyboy and motorbiking intentionally, recklessly and knowingly publishiing information which you believe will cause harm and distress.
But going on your desire for vendettas, it's to be expected.

 

[Mottie]

And you are copying sillyboy and motorbiking intentionally, reacklessly and knowingly publishiing information which you believe will cause harm and distress.

Why would calling you 'Jim' cause you harm and distress even if it is your real first name? Mine is Steve and it wouldn’t cause me any harm or distress whatsoever if you called me Steve or Fred or Pete or even snoopy, so just how harmed or distressed do you feel on a scale of 1 to 10 by being called Jim?

Do you think those members you called 'idiot' were feeling any harm or distress?

 

[motorbiking]

It is, if the supplier of those items is also the main contractor. Even if those items worked perfectly, the main contractor is the one responsible for the system not meeting design specification.
However, if the PO were responsible for providing a resilient network it's not the fault of Fujitsu if they were unaware of the potential problems.
Except of course, they should have designed a system that could cope with network outages.



You're jumping around again, like a rabbit caught in the headlights
You earlier claimed that the system had built in error detection and correction capability.

You're talking boll@x. You've no knowledge of the contractual relationship of the parties. You would need to look at the warranty clause in their contracts. You will find both Oracle and SAP do not offer such warranties.

e.g.

DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE MATERIALS IS UP TO DATE OR ERROR-FREE, NOR DOES IT PROVIDE ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED IN LAW, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

. pretty clear - buy my software and make sure its fit for the purpose you wish to use it for.

They are not alone. This is entirely standard, across the whole industry and is why System Integrators (such as Fujitsu Services) exist. Bring together different components and write software code on the platforms you have chosen to build a system for the customer according to their requirements.

Then we have standard warranties in IT services.. Typically they will have a limitation of Liability clause, capping exposure for damages, then they will have a reasonable skill and care clause to limit professional negligence and lastly they will limit their obligation to re-performing the defective service. That basically means if I got it wrong and you can show I didn't use reasonable skill and care, then my entire liability is to redo the specific defective service.

Now public sector contracts are rather different, but in the case of Horizon, there will have been external consultants involved in the requirements gathering and functional design. There will have been design specification and testing specification signed off by the client and there will have been acceptance test completed and signed off before go-live. This is how IT project are done.

It would be inherently bad design for an integration between two systems to rely on a network. Good design would handle transaction failure due to any cause. i.e. if I cannot guarantee the whole transaction on all the required systems, I must abort all of it or have a process for connecting the unmatched payments to sales.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Why would calling you 'Jim' cause you harm and distress even if it is your real first name? Mine is Steve and it wouldn’t cause me any harm or distress whatsoever if you called me Steve or Fred or Pete or…Jim, so just how harmed or distressed do you feel on a scale of 1 to 10?

It's the intention that matters. Motorbiking was convinced he was putting personal information about me in the public domain.
He did so intentionally and recklessly.
He also claimed that any information had been deleted. That alone should have alerted him to the fact that it should never have been in the public domain, not to mention private information is private and must remain so. So he knowingly posted it anyway.
If his account is true, he contravened a rule on this forum, a rule which is so fundamental it applies throughout society.
Obviously his supposed legal training deserted him just when it suited him to try and cause harm.

So it isn't about the accuracy of the information, it's about his intention to recklessly, wantonly and knowingly to cause harm and distress.

You and sillyboy are copying his stupid and potentially criminal behaviour.
If you wish to disclose your first name that is your choice, I choose to disclose my first name and my surname.
Posting false private information about me is as bad as posting genuine information about me, therefore intentionally, recklessly and knowingly trying to cause harm and distress.

So either way motorbiking, and now you and sillyboy, are knowingly trying to cause harm and distress by persistently posting false information about me.

Now when you couple that false informtion along with the information that ReganandCarter posted, it becomes obvious that some members on here are truly stalking with a vengeance. And you're a typical example. Any snippet of personal information you het hold of you weaponise it to intentionally cause harm and distress, with your vendetta attitude.

But you're all allowed to continue doing it.

 

[motorbiking]

You do realise that you previous attempt to open this up again has been deleted by the moderators?

He also claimed that any information had been deleted. That alone should have alerted him to the fact that it should never have been in the public domain, not to mention private information is private and must remain so. So he knowingly posted it anyway.

and you do realise that the above post confirms that you did what I said you did and you claim you didn't do.

 

[Mottie]

It's the intention that matters. Motorbiking was convinced he was putting personal information about me in the public domain.
He did so intentionally and recklessly.
He also claimed that any information had been deleted. That alone should have alerted him to the fact that it should never have been in the public domain, not to mention private information is private and must remain so. So he knowingly posted it anyway.
If his account is true, he contravened a rule on this forum, a rule which is so fundamental it applies throughout society.
Obviously his supposed legal training deserted him just when it suited him to try and cause harm.

So it isn't about the accuracy of the information, it's about his intention to recklessly, wantonly and knowingly to cause harm and distress.

You and sillyboy are copying his stupid and potentially criminal behaviour.
If you wish to disclose your first name that is your choice, I choose to disclose my first name and my surname.
Posting false private information about me is as bad as posting genuine information about me, therefore intentionally, recklessly and knowingly trying to cause harm and distress.

So either way motorbiking, and now you and sillyboy, are knowingly trying to cause harm and distress by persistently posting false information about me.

Now when you couple that false informtion along with the information that ReganandCarter posted, it becomes obvious that some members on here are truly stalking with a vengeance. And you're a typical example. Any snippet of personal information you het hold of you weaponise it to intentionally cause harm and distress, with your vendetta attitude.

But you're all allowed to continue doing it.

Don’t be such a professionally offended tart, Jim.