Caporegime
Talk about damning with faint praise.
So, this post office palaver then
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Soldato
I think you’re wrong here.
The government don’t directly employ anyone with the right skills, but they pay A LOT of money for external consultancies that do have skilled workers.
I think the reason for this is that they wouldn’t get away with paying the salary needed for highly skilled workers - Daily Mail would pick it up, normal workers at Government would rage etc. Much easier to pay a “consulting fee” and let them pay £100k+ for coders/PMs etc
Soldato
Money can be recouped by omitting Fujitsu from future bidding processes
Soldato
I actually like the guy, but unfortunately he is in at the wrong time, his own party are somewhat racist and power-grabbing, and will love nothing more than throwing him under the bus when he loses the election...which he will.
Everyone is 'racist' these days, particularly all white people, can you be more specific?
As for 'power grabbing' - they are politicians what do you expect? Any future Labour govt would be be power grabbing, nanny state to the extreme lol..
Finally do you think being willing to sack a leader is a bad thing if they don't work out? Look at the mess Labour got into because they were too scared to sack Corbyn...
Soldato
I don't really see how it is their fault. Sure, it was their bug, but all software has bugs. It was the fault of the Post Office for believing that software can't have bugs, the fault of the government, the fault of the courts. All of these people should have realised that it was possible there was a bug.
I don't understand it. Surely it should have been possible to manually check each of these accounts. I guess not. In that it case it was very clearly the Post Office fault for not having any means of checking. I mean, who in their right mind has a piece of software that can not be checked?
Soldato
Because ultimately Fujitsu may seek a reconciliation with a government involving reparations for past misdeeds. Under the table of course.
Soldato
For the first two - particularly the Tory right.
As for the last bit, I remember the days when the party supported it's leader pretty much 100%..until it was time to go. Sunak, at best, seems to have about 52% and the time to go was a week after he started!
Last edited:
I've just seen some pigs flying.
Soldato
For the first two - particularly the Tory right.
As for the last bit, I remember the days when the party supported it's leader pretty much 100%..until it was time to go. Sunak, at best, seems to have about 52% and the time to go was a week after he started!
As the party opposite has only had white male leaders for the last century and a bit. They had a chance of a northern female of Indian subcontinental heritage but chose a millionaire retired barrister living in London instead.
Soldato
It is amazing to me that the post office still as the power to prosecute in there own right.
They are like their own CPS.
Strip Post Office of prosecution powers over Horizon scandal – Starmer
It comes as MPs plan to raise the Horizon scandal in the Commons as Parliament returns this week, amid public outcry.www.bracknellnews.co.uk
It's ironic that Starmer is calling for this, given as the head of the CPS at the time. he was involved in the prosecutions. The CPS were involved in the prosecutions.
Conveniently he's denying all knowledge.
For the first two - particularly the Tory right.
As for the last bit, I remember the days when the party supported it's leader pretty much 100%..until it was time to go. Sunak, at best, seems to have about 52% and the time to go was a week after he started!
Labelling anything on the right as 'racist' is just a lazy way to try and shut down debate particularly if you are on the left and have no alternative ideas to deal with the issues that the public care about..
100% without question? What like Hitler? That worked out well..
I've not finished the ITV series yet so I'm not clear whether the suggestion is that the problem was caused by actual bugs or simply by Fujitsu support staff having non-audited access to postmasters accounts. Probably a bit of both? But as everyone who has worked in a support environment should know, most systems have a back end which can be accessed and updated. That may not be through the actual application but typically it would be some maintenance screens or more likely by manual database updates. When I was running support teams for various banks it was common to make data adjustments where there was a known issue. But it was always under appropriate change control and, at least in more recent years, through controlled, approved and audited breakglass access. Those controls would have been a lot weaker in the late 1990's and I remember back in those days my production userid had standing update access to the database (this isn't the case nowadays of course).
As for the PO being responsible for the bugs it must have signed off on, this was back in the late 90's. Controls around the project would not have been to the standard we see today. But even today I would say that the PO would not be responsible for bugs in software they have signed off, if those bugs were not evident in their acceptance testing. The PO would have specified how the software should behave and would later sign off that the software performed functionally to their agreed requirements. But it should be Fujitsu who are responsible for ensuring the software quality was sufficient so that such bugs don't happen. Obviously this is just an assumption and will come down to the actual contract signed. Every system I've seen implemented has bugs that get fixed over the coming days, weeks and months. It appears to me that in this case the PO blindly believed, or maybe were persuaded by Fujitsu, that there was no possibility of this being caused by a bug. Then when things became tricky there appears to have been a cover up.
As for the PO being responsible for the bugs it must have signed off on, this was back in the late 90's. Controls around the project would not have been to the standard we see today. But even today I would say that the PO would not be responsible for bugs in software they have signed off, if those bugs were not evident in their acceptance testing. The PO would have specified how the software should behave and would later sign off that the software performed functionally to their agreed requirements. But it should be Fujitsu who are responsible for ensuring the software quality was sufficient so that such bugs don't happen. Obviously this is just an assumption and will come down to the actual contract signed. Every system I've seen implemented has bugs that get fixed over the coming days, weeks and months. It appears to me that in this case the PO blindly believed, or maybe were persuaded by Fujitsu, that there was no possibility of this being caused by a bug. Then when things became tricky there appears to have been a cover up.
Man of Honour
They were only involved in a tiny number of the prosecutions and why would the head of the service be expected to have knowledge of all prosecutions during their time?
Last edited:
Wasn't one of the issues that most of the prosecutions were by the Post Office themselves? One of the changes being called for is to end that power. It's clearly an abuse if the prosecuting body is in control of what evidence is released to the defence team.
Exactly the Labour Party leadership is 100% 'gammon' (as the woke like to say) whereas as the incredibly diverse Tory leadership is / was the wrong kind of 'brown' apparently, you couldn't make it up..
A leader should take accountability for failures during their tenure.. you can just hear those words being bleated out in Starmers nasally twang during PMQ's.. the hypocrisy..
27 cases apparently.
Hardly a tiny number, especially if you were on the receiving end.