|
|
|
|
|
|
by etna_ramequin
813 days ago
|
|
|
I spotted a few oddities in the reporting of these ‘secret papers’.[1] The only extract of the report the journalists show is, at the very least, misleading. They’re claiming that Fujitsu employees could do a type of requests which would (i) change the record of the transactions in the audit log and (ii) would actually impact the postmasters accounting position.
However, the report actually states that these are two different types of requests, the first one doesn’t impact the accounting position and the second one (BTs) could change the accounting position but would be recorded in the audit log.
The audit log shows that BTs, have only been used once in the period at hand so are unlikely to have caused the accounting shortfalls. I would quite like to see the original Post Office “Defense” that is mentioned in the article, but don’t know where to find it. Would somebody have a clue? [1] https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/pol0002... |
|
|