Search results

there's three phases of problem, with their own set of "people to blame". first the software deficencies, though relatively minor, given more wieght by assurances the software worked correctly. developers built to spec, their managers told some little lies to cover arse. second was the...

with Agile you're lucky if you see design and documention. hopefully some still exists in finacial apps. coding starts once a non-technical product owner says they'd like a vaguely specificed feature. after months of this you hope it all comes together and meets a design brief that wasn't...

changed my view. seems Vennells was involved in covering up and damage limitation, rather than resolving the problem.

its really what the inquiry is all about. parliament is engaging in a bit of after timing, looking like they are on top of it in response to a TV programme. not to say the committe shouldnt be involved, though it has previously asked all this before.

make the observation there wasn't a regulator to be involved and challenge anything. normally regulators concern themselves with consumer protection or compliance with laws. here the victims were sub-contractors and the laws were fraud prevention, which managment zealously applied - they saw...

sub-postmasters are self employed though right? so no redundancy. would seem a convoluted way to reduce the number either way, spending thousands on legal cases (rising to millions in the end).

i've seen some reference to this point, without answer, Post Office had a surplus and seems no one put two and two together. it's also raised that the subpostmaster end didnt have a buffer account to hold funds until queries resolved. basic process flaws were baked in.

agree those are people really resonsible, they aren't the low fruit as not in public eye.

here's a problem with the public perceptions. see THPP post above, Fujitsu have been involved in govenment contracts for decades (back to 1960s as ICL). they got the PO contract because they are one of the go to IT contractors. predict a rebrand and Fujitsu sell off at this rate. wont...

going to be a big haul of fruit.

i have more faith in the inquiry process uncovering real information and presenting it fairly, rather than the lazy media/politican narratives that going after low hanging fruit.

seems i was under incorrect info they didnt turn a profit until 2016. eitherway, its dodgy trying to claw back a bonus of one individual for events over 15 year, and there's a public inquiry underway that a lot want to preempt.

Post Office didnt make profits in the period of the postmasters prosecutions.

this is an interesting collection of data, showing the start and end of the occurances of prosecutions. for added context, there was third party audit in 2012, reporting in 2013. https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/05/post-office-reviewing-900-prosecutions.html

likely wont have been one person, it would be various people. at first some believing the new system fit the spec, then some covering, then others following along as that was the process. some in RM/PO management, some at Fujitsu. so set expectations, there wont be a single prosecution...

it shouldn't be, but the public like a good witch hunt... currently 3:1 punishment over compenstation.

the problems and prosecutions lastest from 1999 to ~2015. in the earlier phase Post Office was still part of Royal Mail. there's quite a lot of arse covering and mud slinging now its more public, with the media and politicans piling in without a second thought. we'll get a sacrifical lamb and...

of course it's IT related, my point is the problems stem from the management. if they'd treated reports more honestly and objectively as bug reports, investigated as anomolies in the software and rechecked audit trails, they might have seen that errors where occuring and responded...

we know the problem wasnt an IT issue directly, it was with management insistance it was flawless and infallible. they will never get to an individual responsible, except a ceremonial scapegoat, because there were probably hundreds over the years perpetuating and enforcing the entrenched view...

as i read this is misinformation based on how HMRC treats interest on compensation payments. the inital compensation is tax free, interest on it after being delayed is taxable. something similar with the blood transfer compenstion, and there's been tax changes to correct since.