Will Fujitsu Be Held To Account Over The Po Scandal?

[youngmafbog]

Althought the customer (PO) should be ultimately responsible shouldnt Fujitsu also be?  It appears they kne about issues and even were able to amend live data.

And on top of that they have other lucrative Government contracts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12944819/Fujitsu-horizon-post-office-scandal-uk-criminal-records-system.html

[nicebloke1]

Shifting the blame is the norm I'm afraid, more so when it involves IT systems. You can train a monkey to opperate a system in any industry, high tec prodution whatever. Should that system fail blame the monkey, the monkey is less likely to prove otherwise.

A more simple example of ducking any responsibility would be Sky Broadband or for that matter any broadband supply. When ever you may be having problems, their answer is always, your computer must be at fault. Its days later you find out that wasn't the case, this is after you've spent the day or more scanning and mucking about looking for a fault thats not there, not to mention the on line security systems that never live up to what they are cracked up to be.

[andy-hughes]

Isn't technology wonderful ..... !!!

[nicebloke1]

When its working yes, but I really think "up grading" should take a back seat for a while.

[theshedman]

Why was it so long for the Post Office to act when so many of their Post Masters seemed to be going rogue.  Yes over the years one or two may have been wrong but to have so many just after you install a new computer system cannot be a coincidence.

[andy-hughes]

For reasons already explained  - easier to blame them than the faulty system management signed off before it was ready.

[youngmafbog]

Interesting AH, even after 40 years of developing systems you have more knowledge than me 🙄

Oh well.

Other than saying it really doesnt work like you said its not worth bothering as you never listen and only go round in circles trying to get the last word.

But on this you are wrong.

[andy-hughes]

YMB - I must have missed the bit where I said I know more than you - Be a good chap and point it out for me, thanks everso. 

As I never tire of telling people on here in general,  and retrocop in particular, expert, or even basic knowledge of anything is not necessary to gave, and offer, a view and an opinion.

I wouldn't know a multi-firing rifle if I fell over one, but I have an opinion about whether or not you should ve able to buy one at Walmart. 

I was simply offering a view on the situation as I see it, nothing more than that.

I am always up for being educated if you wish - except in sarcastic posts, I can destroy there without thinking about it.

Last word? Bring it on ...

[Peter Pedant]

 their customer decided to press ahead with implementation instead of spending the time and money needed to get the bugs sorted, which Fujitsu would no doubt have done as part of their contract.

so a sculptor dumps a load of clay at a punters feet and says "make this into The Thinker, I dont have time"

as TTT says  - - righto !

[Peter Pedant]

As I never tire of telling people,  and retrocop in particular, expert, or even basic knowledge of anything is not necessary to give a view and an opinion.

good god - is AH serious ?

well boys and girls why dont people listen to me then? They  are always saying I am full of crap !  haw haw haw

[jno]

ymb, yes, selling something that isn't fit for purpose is typically actionable.

I'd like to see compensation squeezed out of Fujitsu. If the PO has to pay it, that means you and me.

[andy-hughes]

It's only actionable if it is sold 'as fit for purpose' when it's not.

The scenario I imagine is the  system was handed over, and the customer advised - Check this out. Test it completely, ket us know where the issues are, we'll sort them, and then ... you're going to use it now are you? Even though it's not ready yet? Well...'

Now it may be that the PO were told it was ready to go, but I seriously doubt that.

We will see when the investigation gets to it, until then we are all just guessing. 

But for the record, guessing is allowed. We don't have to be experts, it's just a conversation, no-one's being held accountable!

[Peter Pedant]

Now it may be that the PO were told it was ready to go, but I seriously doubt that.

sums up why it  is irrelevant to the plight of the sub post masters.

[Peter Pedant]

It's only actionable if it is sold 'as fit for purpose' when it's not.

er current legislation is that if it is sold then it is fit for purpose - and it clearly wasnt

so it is actionable !

( there isnt too much heady logic in this post is there? it is  after all AB). This thread is really weird

[andy-hughes]

PP - From my experience of complex computer systems, bugs are expected, and built into the delivery timetable. 

The customer tests the system, advises the bugs, the manufacturer then works out the bugs, and the two-and-fro continues until it works.

As I said, there is only criminality if the system is advised as 'ready' when the manufacturer can be proved to know that it wasn't. 

I could be wrong, but as I said,  we are only kicking ideas around.

[Bert45]

I don't understand why every sub-postmaster in the country did not have discrepancies.

How could such huge discrepancies be believed by anyone (including the courts)?

The Panorama programme said that the Fujitsu bid for the contract came bottom in 7 out of 11 categories (presumably categories on which the bid would be judged). However, it was the cheapest bid. What could go wrong?

[andy-hughes]

Bert - // I don't understand why every sub-postmaster in the country did not have discrepancies. //

Because that's how bugs in software systems work.

They are intermittent, they don't react in the same way every time, they change what they do, and where.

That's why systems have to be tested, sent back with advice for repair, returned, and then tested again.

This is how bugs are found and eliminated.

So there is no reason for all the terminals to react in the same way - that's just bugs, and they are a devil to find and fix, which is why people who find and fix them are highly paid skilful technicians.

[Peter Pedant]

How could such huge discrepancies be believed by anyone (including the courts)?

from todays oral testimony  - end of day ( and this was  only cash accounts) say £300 - and £297 and you think - ah there will be reconciliation in a few days, and it  will be found

it isnt

it has gone into a suspense of orphan payments they know not who from. And  stay there ( I am speaking from experience in another sphere and  the "other side" were most put out when I told them  where they wd find my payment to them ( it doesnt  appear in our  accounts - yes it  does))

and so some - - diddled up £3 to make it all balance at the end of the day and were told that if it didnt balance  and they knew it, it was onbvious false accounting

 

 

[tomus42]

Both Fujitsu and the PO were fully aware that the software was garbage, yet continued to allow people they knew to be innocent be bankrupted and imprisoned.

They should both be held accountable, but primarily the PO, because they're the ones that prosecuted and lied to their own people.

[tomus42]

Fujitsu had live access to people's accounts and were going in and p'ssing about with the figures on the fly without the users being aware this was possible, let alone being done.

Presumably they were trying to firefight the shocking number of errors the system was generating to make it look less ropey.

There must have been some criminal law breached in all of that.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah but no but - the subs have no claim on Fujitsu in er anything - contract or tort

But it is said that Post Office are trying to reclaim some of the money from Fujitsu - but that as they say is another case