Talk:British Post Office scandal/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Appeals against convictions

This section should be about actual appeals and actual overturning of convictions. I have removed various opinions about this which are speculative and not really relevant to this section. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This goes to the nub of the scope of the scandal. The scope is not to be determined by POL alone. Its attempts to define the scope is an important aspect of the scandal. Having been judicially proven to have unlawfully prosecuted a huge number its legally protected place in the appeal process is being challenged. Four legal experts (not including Moorhead) went before the Justice Committee yesterday. arguing that point. The scandal is that POL flouted its obligations as a private prosecutor and unlawfully obtained a huge but as yet unknown number of unlawful convictions. The fact that our legal system demands that POL must have a place in each and every appeal against any conviction it obtained has led to the proposing legislation to bypass the appeal process. The section should primarily be about this rather than cases

This section of the article should not just be randomly selected list of successful appeals. It should address that ways in which the system was used, abused. Individual cases documented should illustrate and identify the particular aspects that show. The Wolstenholme case has some but not identified in its documentation here. Jacksoncowes (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Casleton & Wolstenholme are civil put them under a different heading in the way the article is currently structured but the point I have tried to elucidate remains. Jacksoncowes (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Angela van den Bogerd

I'm thinking of spinning out a separate article on Angela van den Bogerd, based on the volume of RS coverage of her, specifically. Any objhections? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume it'd be a standard BLP article, not solely limited to her role in the BPO scandal? -- Jmc (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Origin of computer glitch?

Hi, evidence has emerged that at least some but not all of the discrepancies may be due to a defect in the actual processors used. I accidentally discovered this a few years back with the early AMD chips (4800 and 5600) that some games didn't run properly until patched because the cores got out of sync resulting in data corruption. This might have worsened with load as typically higher clocks generated more issues and the effect also varied depending on motherboard type and RAM manufacturer. The Intel chips at the time didn't suffer as badly from this but SPECTRE and Meltdown became an issue later. Is it worth Intel and AMD testifying at the Horizon inquiry given that Intel already knew of a much earlier errata in the Pentium (FDIV) that was later patched in the silicon revision. The issue of an actual hardware defect or defects being a factor has come up before but as the hardware is so old now maybe something got overlooked? 91.190.161.160 (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources discussing this? Can you share them here?Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is any possible technical explanation, one might expect it to come to light in the official enquiry. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

91.190.161.160, a discussion on computerforum.com is not what we would consider a reliable source. See WP:RS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You might want to raise this in other forums if you feel concerned, but until this comes up in WP:RS, this isn't a matter for Wikipedia. — The Anome (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Controversial

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter: has added a controversy tag ("The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute"). Just wondered why? The subject itself is not controversial - in the sense that no-one is arguing that the Post Office is blameless. I have looked back over the past month's edits (over 100) and there doesn't seem to be any content dispute, etc. Southdevonian (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I have now removed it. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)