Search results

I think he's saying that it was mainly fine, and almost all of the time it worked perfectly. That is - 'robust' in IT terms, as there are bugs in everything. Of course, on the occasions when it did go wrong - the above attitude prevented the proper investigation of the SPM's claims that it...

Strikes me so far the Mr Beer is treating him as a 'sympathetic witness' - in that he's leading him to show that he was sort of kept in the dark or not made fully aware, and guided by what was wanted of him. All this about what an 'expert witness' is - I've been an 'expert witness' at public...

I think the point I was making is that the 'why' wouldn't be the uppermost thing in his mind - so would be the first thing his mind would then drop. I would think it's the same in all professions - and indeed in life. You remember the doing, not always why/how you got there!

I think he actually has some fair points here. He was an IT expert, and he's being asked about 'why' he was asked to make changes. He's repeatedly said that he may have been told something about 'why', but he wasn't interested, because his job was the 'how' - so he hasn't retained any memory...

Indeed. But this chap has basically been hung out to dry by the PO, so he might be a bit more forthcoming.

Alternatively he might say ' I told PO about the problems, they changed my witness statements and instructed me what to say'.

Camp 1.5 for me! It struck me that he was using track changes / delete, where he should really have used the Add Comment function - where you highlight the words and raise a question which shows to the side of the document. I think that's what he was trying to do - he wanted the third reason...

Thanks for posting this. Everyone remotely involved in any sort of legal work, or even amending stuff at whatever work you do should watch that - to fully understand the potential repercussions and consequences of our keyboard actions, and how they can come back to haunt us. Mr Beer is rapidly...

Maybe just use that same ditch instead...?

They can't find him - no-one seems to know where he is.

Not only did they compel the sub-postmasters to pay 'back' to the PO money that they hadn't actually taken in the first place, they then received bonuses because of it. That's straight theft from the sub-postmasters to the investigators / executives.

No - there wasn't a gotcha moment, and I watched quite a lot of it. But what happened really was a constant chipping away at the narrative she was portraying. Almost everything she was confronted with she 'explained' away with comments like 'I can see how it reads now, but that's not what I...

The final 20 minutes were fascinating. I thought the questioner was a bit disjointed to begin with, but he ended up basically setting her up for his final piece. He asked about her media colleague and a comment on the Today programme. She said that it was awful, and not something she would...

They will make her appear on a different day.

Tomorrow might be feisty though. Instead of the calm Mr Beer, it's the turn of barristers representing victims and others. They will be far more attack minded.

In amongst all the despair and sadness this has all caused, there are a few moments that lift the spirit a bit - such as Mr Beer finding a way of saying 'that's complete bollocks' without actually saying it.

She said at one point "I wouldn't use those words" about something in an email from her. Mr Beer simply said "You did".

Oh - something else she didn't read / understand at the time....

Yes - he was asking her if she agreed with it. But what was striking was that her immediate thought was about showing herself to be above the use of the work 'subbies'. She had to be prompted to answer the important question of whether she thought that they had their hands in the tills.