FUJ00094392
FUJ00094392
; Holmes Alart
[ABINGROUP1/CN= RECIPIENTS/CN= GRAHAM, I_ALLEN]
To: Jenkins Gareth ¢.
From: Allen Graham (BRA01)[/O=EXCHANGE/OU=,
Sent: Thur 3/11/2010 8:26:38 AM (UTC)
Subject: I FW: HNGX Counter Review
0217 Post Office HNG-X Counter Review v3 0 .doc
FYI
Graham Allen
Application Services — Post Office Account
FUJITSU
Lo
Tel
Mol
mail: graham. allen@
Web: http:/uk fujitsu. com
sf Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 9605 London, W1U 3BW
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee
that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: D'Alvarez Alan
Sent: 10 March 2010 16:53
To: Butts Geoff; Allen Graham (BRAQ1); Dodington Chris; Thomas Andrew; Johns David DL; Kostuch Maz; Leask David; Rye Stuart;
Roberts Paul (AS)
Subject: HNGX Counter Review
After review with legal (see e-ail below) two amendments have been made to the documents and, in both cases, the sections
referred to have been removed as they do not materially add to the primary purpose of the review which is to determine whether
the solution, as designed, would protect data integrity.
Version 3 has been sent to Dave Smith, Post Office.
Rgds
Alan D' Alvarez
Programme Director, RMGA
Associate P&PM Academy
FUJITSU
E-mail: alan.d'alvarez¢
ervices Limited, Registered in England no. 96056. Registered Office: 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this e-mail
has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
Hi Alan,
Further to our discussion of Friday, please find below the two comments I had raised:
1. First paragraph, p.2 - The following section is potentially problematic: “/t would seriously undermine Post Office credibility
and possibly historic cases if it could be shown that a discrepancy could be caused by a system error rather than
postmaster/clerk action. Most importantly, the central database as the system of record would be called into question.”. As
discussed, there is no need to paint this in the worst possible light. I would suggest the following as being accurate without
being unduly alarmist: “If it could be shown that a discrepancy could be caused by a system error rather than a
postmaster/clerk action, it could potentially call into question the effectiveness of the central database as a system
of record.”
2. Section 3.19 on page 7 - You'll recall that we could not really make sense of what was being referred to here.
If you wish to discuss any of this further, please don’t hesitate to call.
Kind regards
FUJ00094392
FUJ00094392
JP
Jean-Philippe Prénovost
Corporate Legal Counsel
FUJITSU
The Boulevard, Cain Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1HH
Telephone
Mobile:
E-mail: je
Web: http:\\uk.fujitsu.com
n
itsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that
this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.