Post Office Horizon Inquiry Susan Crichton & Julian Blake Part 1 of 6
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- My thoughts on Susan Crichton change in her testimony to the inquiry.
00:00 Intro
00:14 Susan Elizabeth Crichton
02:38 Starting at the beginning... 2010
07:18 She now knows of Horizon cases
09:38 Jarnail Faux Pas coming up
14:30 Susan wants Horizon dependent cases stopped
19:40 Jarnail thinks it is BUSINESS AS USUAL
21:49 What did the boardroom know?
25:43 Is Susan getting the message?
27:48 She is given the Ismay Report
32:47 IT IS HERE MY OPINION ON HER CHANGES 
Приколы
The whole bug /exception thing is ridiculous. Paula's techie husband doesn't know what he's talking about. Bugs are a genuine software term, as is an exception but the two are not generally interchangeable and generally mean very different things.
As a developer I can explain further. An exception can be an expected situation, these are known as Handled Exceptions. An example is a timeout exception, it took longer than 30seconds for the server to return some information because it was busy. This is expected and there is code that handles this scenario gracefully.
A bug on the other hand is an unexpected and unwanted outcome after execution of code.
A good example is the Horizon coding REM bug, where a developer mistakenly used a - instead of a + leading to the Ledger amount being wrong and the ruination of innocent lives!
@@deloford I love techies, being one myself.
@@deloford The design was fundamentally flawed. Because I was getting mixed up in coding an interface between a proprietary currency options hedging system and accounting software (which brought me into contact with Bjarne Stroustrup in his early banking era, allowing me to connect the dots - my surname's by accident at the centre of all code!), I did the ACCA systems evening course in the mid 80s. That permits me to be certain that the design here was fundamentally not fit for purpose, as the backdoor broke the audit trail numbering consecutivity, and what you just described, serial processing, was a throwback to 1970s systems, when they should have prepared a transaction object and posted that to the DB in a single shot. Equally, the fact they could be edited is also a radical breach of standards.
I agree. Both bug and exception are genuine software terms. Defect is not a genuine software term. Defect is not precise. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that a defect has no remedy. An exception generally has a type (e.g. NullPointerException, NumberFormatException etc.) normally accompanied by a Stack Trace. Bug reports on the other hand, originally, came from the bugs that made their nests in hand-wound memory banks. Bug is not a slang term. Bugs are real problems in code that have an effect and have reproducible steps.
Why was Horizon not tested or tested properly with test cases to make sure it provides valid outputs before implemenation?
She didn’t fidget she looked him straight in the eyes and answered with no hesitation. I believe what she said.
Same. I think she sounded truthful. Unlikely Angela V D B later in the week 😱
I was impressed by this lady ..she is a decent honest courageous person. First witness I've watched who was straightforward, honest and had concern for the way Jamail Singh wanted to blunder on with bullying prosecutions
yes agreed ... an illustration of what happens when you try to speak out against the establishment
She's the first competent and honest person we've seen. She said the prosecutions based solely on Horixon evidence should be stopped.
Singh wanted none of it.
What's honest about saying "I don't remember" for 80% of all the questions...??
Thanks Charlie for doing this so quickly.
Excellent editing. 😊😊😊
After a whole series of incompetents and obvious liars , she seemed to be alone in at least trying to do the right thing, by ensuring that the Second Sight investigation, and report, were truly independent , and give the Board the true picture. However the Board decided to ‘kill the messenger’
Agreed but she was not in favour of wide ranging investigation- eg opening up old cases - she still wanted to limit scope of independence investigation
‘Independent investigation’
Stark contrast here with Rodric Williams - he of the inability to follow any question which contained a subordinate clause, his insistence on only looking at hard copy (he must have spent the last twenty years working with a computer screen, so that was surely all about "delay, delay, delay"); and SC, whose demeanour is calm, her answers direct, and - I think, honest - even when she is admitting faults, which made me think that unlike most previous witnesses, when she says she can't recall something, you're inclined to believe her. She is the first witness I've seen who comes over as possessing some integrity. That's probably why Paula Vennells threw her under the bus.
From what I have viewed so far they are ALL chucking each other under the bus one way or another, having already forced the poor
victims under the wheels beforehand! In some cases literally. So you will forgive me if I am unable to see decency in any of them. SC, like everyone else at POL and Fujitsu knew only too well what had gone on and tried to do a damage limitation exercise for the PO and its board. While she may have had some scruples, they were misdirected and misguided. Her apology is quite lame and there is nothing unreserved or sincere about it! She, like all the others, is trying to dumb down her own involvement and that does not sit well with me. Or the victims. 🙏😶
After hearing more of this witness I am inclined to change my original harsh view of her.
FOOl! Keep watching! And listening! 🙏😶
She seems like a reasonable human which is a first for the PO. Interesting to hear the rest of what she has to say about Paula. Sounds like she dropped her in it a couple of times.
I watched all this yesterday and as I watched I was wondering what Charlie would be thinking about her and he answered in his first sentence. (My opinion has changed on her significantly.) So has mine. By no means do I think she is a hero in this story but I most certainly believe there was an attempt to scapegoat her. (I've just started watching Charlie's video so don't know his take on this. )
I thought exactly the same..
Susan definitely has an axe to grind with the ruling elite of the Post Office, some of whom found her to be more inclined to follow the correct legal rule book.
Yet a new level of crazy. To think I once compared the PO to a flock of headless chickens, a genuine flock of headless chickens would now feel justifiably insulted.
A senior lawyer actually used the word 'copulation' instead of 'capitulation'. It's speaks volumes that this is only a 20% chance of being a typo.
It's hard to imagine ANY of the prosecutions which did not rely on Horizon evidence
Ghost is interesting choice of words. It implies that transactions were added
No audit logs again is a major issue.
The judge in a computer related case being ignorant of computers is a major issue.
This woman I get the feeling is out for blood a lot more
Thanks Charlie, these do take some editing to highlight the salient points. The number of S.C.s "Cant renember" answers was rather irritating watching it live, which made it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I was weary of Susan at first, she did make some serious errors, but as her evidence progressed I felt sorry for her. I think certain coming participants will start openly blaming each other during their evidence.
Integrity has a technical meaning. Even if transactions are dropped, the database will pass database integrity checks.
So you have to be very very careful with the meaning of the word. I can see a DBA saying it passes integrity checks.
Then the lawyers interpret that as being it must be correct.
So glad she made her feelings known to PVenn in Costa. I dont think, by any stretch, that this woman is one of the main villians in this enquiry.
Susan was only at the PO for three years then left with a FOUR MILLION POUND payoff. Not like the poor SPMs.
Only sorry they got cought.
There are already laws in place to make sure this never happens again, but like these people there will always be those who will manipulate it.
I've mixed opinions of Susan Crichton, whilst she tends to come across as maybe truthful. If she resigned or was dismissed because she didn’t like what was going on why didn’t she speak out or did she receive a big payoff to keep quiet! If it was the later, Shame on her.
That burning question was answered today, and spoilers... it put me off her a bit more after feeling a bit of empathy for her.
@@CharlieFlemingOriginal thanks Charlie, just show we can get caught out. many thanks for great videos.
She had to sign a non disclosure agreement when she left
She left with a £4million payoff. Why? Her silence bought?
To be honest none of the board liked her and I feel she was bullied and they wanted her out, because in the end they got rid of her manage her out of the business, I do feel she could have thrown a lot more under the bus but didn't. Charlie your doing a great job well done and thanks.
13:39 as it turns out it wasn’t public money, it was funny money generated by Horizon.
WHERE ARE THE OTHER VIDEOS
I have absolutely no sympathy for this woman. She knew like all the others what was going on! She should have, at the very least, reported many of her working colleagues, in particular, Jarnal Singh, if for nothing more than his utter incompetence! They are ALL guilty of persecuting POL and Fujitsu victims! And they're still doing it! 🙏😶
That's easy to say. Think of what's happening today in, say, schools, or the NHS. There are thousands of employees who profoundly disagree with the direction of travel in these organisations - but how many of us have the courage to swim against the tide and probably risk dismissal, and worse. I think she's guilty perhaps of weakness in the face of opposition - but not, like almost all the witnesses I've seen so far, outright moral turpitude or downright criminality.
A normal person would react with horror at the mere suggestion that innocent people had their lives RUINED by spurious prosecutions and would act IMMEDIATELY, not embark on back and fro emails for months on end.
Seen enough now. She is as guilty as the rest of them.
Exactly she took 4 million to be quite.
I don't think so...
@@catherinesinclair7727 How are you related to her Catherine?
I struggle to believe these people in high office are unable to recal/remember such important items from the time in the role, even tho there is a considerable paper trail which effectively leaves them under a very strong spotlight.
Not about Susan Crichton but a pal of mine worked on cases with James Arbuthnot and her words are "Those bastards lied to our faces"... it's not a good look, is it?
The people of POL together with the computer company should all put their hands up to this stinking offence. If one, or even two sum postmasters were fiddling the books, or had their hands in the till, that would be enough! But all of a sudden, and within a very short period, you have a few hundred people all experiencing the same problem, all, apparently with their hands in the till . . . Funny, strange that they all got together, at the same time!! Fujitsu were aware of a problem, and told the PO - and they couldn’t see it??
I hope the money was enough to silence Susan's conscience.
Having said that, she's one of the only ones we've seen who does seem to actually have a conscience. I'm not sure if thst makes her better or worse.
Crichton clearly still pities herself more than the postmasters she inflicted pain and misery on, and although ultimately brought in Second Sight did a good job of trying to limit their scope, change the terminology around "bugs", did absolutely nothing off the back of the Clarke advice and had no interest in ensuring her prosecutors were acting accordingly. Laughably she thought as head of legal for a company who had the right to initiate prosecutions, she had no responsibility for oversight of Singh whatsover.
Especially given most of her testimony was "I can't remember" my sympathy for her treatment by Vennells etc definitely waned towards the end.
Jarnail Singh was clearly biased and pro-post office. He clearly didn’t care about getting to the facts of what was going wrong. It’s starting to look like he should be disbarred?
She does seem to be less awful than the previous parade of *********.
Seeming less awful than the others is a not a massive strong point, we are talking about an institution responsible for the worst miscarriage etc. So it's a very high bar to get under.
And she was paid an awful lot of money whilst innocents were undeniably persecuted on her 'legal' watch.
Oh absolutely, at the moment I am timestamping and hoping it get parts 2,3,4,5,6 AND 7 edited and uploaded today (exhausted is an understatement lol) although she isn't perfect, there ARE things she didn't do or press harder with and there is the weird "under the radar" horizon issues thing with John Scott and other things... but she DID get second sight to investigate and she was clearly becoming an issue for Post Office when she was letting the investigators do what they wanted.... to stop an already too long reply lol I'd say she has disarmed 90% of my dislike of her but in the grand scheme the remaining 10 is not good at all.
Susan Crichton? Wasn't she in Red Dwarf?
Refusing to be the 'scapegoat'..
she will bring down the house of cards that is the POlL
Copulation lmao.. people in the audience laughed at that
What's with the quality?
I don't have the money to be a glitzy top sound and vision tuber lol
Quality is fine, although I'd suggest increasing volume a little on the TV Charlie
It would be worth investing, a lot of people will pass straight over this.
My advice is just be grateful for Charlie's video's and analyisies, he is spot on 👍
Disagree, there's enough quality for coherence.@@gordonhall214
I disagree with the thought she's an innocent adrift, because she resigned in 2013 and then kept quiet, despite knowing Subpostmasters were still being condemned for the next two years and that a wrong remained to be righted right up until now. It's called being a fellow-traveller, and lacking the moral courage to defy it. I spent the first ten years of my career working for Sir Adrian Cadbury, one of the great proponents for the use of Non-Executive Directors (indeed, my career pretty much started saving the mojo of one of his, Peter Carington, at the height of the Falklands crisis), and then after a decade in hot crisis management, with Count Arnoud de Pret Rhoose de Calesberghe, likewise eminent in the field of CPR. This is the opposite, and I'd like to hear what the POL non-execs were up to, now it's focusing on the Board, and probably HM Treasury to boot.
When she resigned, Ms Crichton was bound under a non-disclosure order.
Thank you for your service…🙄
@@thisiszaphod The Law cannot be used to secure criminal behaviour. The legality of such a document would have been questionable - the woman's a lawyer, after all. In fact,. given her position, she probably drafted it herself!
@@annoyingbstard9407 The Belgian Supreme Court appointed me a legist, which isn't really a position in English Law, although the Ministry of Justice did follow it up autonomously by asking my service on the beta test panel of the database behind legislation gov uk, in the company of numerous top-flight barristers.
Less fucking memory than Nicola Sturgeon
This is a bit of a shock. The other stinkers must have been crapping themselves about going on the stand. This woman must have looked forward to getting her opportunity of putting her side of this shit show in the public domain. I did think, after listening to her day at the inquiry, she may be giving .....for a change ...an honest testimony.
This woman is one of the main culprits, she was the legal leader that manipulated the information to the extent of either having it destroyed, not recorded during meetings and deliberately hidden from view by something called ‘legal privilege’ she wanted a ‘central hub’ created, whereby she could see all information coming in and if it showed that Horizon was at fault she would then deem it to be under ‘legal privilege’ so this way no one was able to access it.
She knew exactly what was wrong and went into industrial overdrive to conceal the truth, whilst at the same time she was orchestrating the criminal trial evidence that was being given in court by her team that ended up with the horror stories we are now aware of.
She perverted the course of justice, there is NO doubt of this, she knew that during these trials there was evidence that would change the outcome, this is a wilful and deliberate action and, one taken by a very experienced lawyer and, it wasn’t just the one time, nor was it twice, nor was it several, no, this went into thousands (estimates are 4000+or-). She is a criminal, there is documented evidence, there is also this inquiry witness testimony, if this ghoul does not go to prison then there is no hope for justice or its place in England and Wales.
utter rubbish . go and watch the full video . .
Watch her evidence. She is a decent honest woman who got the Second Sight review commissioned and she wanted to halt all prosecutions pending the result of that report. When Vennells and the exec realised that this lady had not tried to interfere with Second Sight to get them to find in favour of horizon they shunned her made her ill and she eventually resigned because of the way she was treated / how the Board was trying to defend Horizon
A pity you weren't around to demonstrate that the two ICL software experts had got it all wrong when they said there was nothing wrong with the software
@@Richard-yd1ws
The governance, or lack of it is this retch’s failure, bad leadership and deciding to take the wrong fork in the road is where her culpability is accountable.
Yetminster - home of the Yetties Muck-Spreader.
Way down on our farm we are right up to date,
For mechanisation's the byword of late
For every task, we've a gadget to match,
But our new muck-spreader's the best of the batch
Fling it here, Fling it there,
If you're standing by then you'll all get your share