| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? 18:42 - Jan 11 with 2332 views | Plums |
With interest in the Post Office case so high - here is alleged cronyism of the highest order connected right to the heart of the tories and government.
It surely can't go unnoticed by the masses now.
|  |
| |  |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:24 - Jan 12 with 1976 views | Plums |
aaaannnd another one:
| |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:28 - Jan 12 with 1963 views | TownieRob |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:24 - Jan 12 by Plums |
aaaannnd another one:
|
Wasn't Mr. Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions when the cases came to light? In my view, no one emerges from this situation looking better than anyone else. |  | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:29 - Jan 12 with 1957 views | Zx1988 |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:28 - Jan 12 by TownieRob |
Wasn't Mr. Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions when the cases came to light? In my view, no one emerges from this situation looking better than anyone else. |
The key word is 'public'.
The Post Office prosecutions were private cases, hence the CPS (and Starmer) had ZERO involvement, despite what the client press wants you to think. | |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:36 - Jan 12 with 1928 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:24 - Jan 12 by Plums |
aaaannnd another one:
|
This would all makes sense if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s was a Labour government who gave
Fujitsu the £2.4bn lifetime contract with the Post Office for the Horizon system. The SNP government in Scotland also gave Fujitsu several contracts . |  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:38 - Jan 12 with 1920 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:29 - Jan 12 by Zx1988 |
The key word is 'public'.
The Post Office prosecutions were private cases, hence the CPS (and Starmer) had ZERO involvement, despite what the client press wants you to think. |
That’s not strictly true. There were up to 38 prosecutions of post office operators initiated by the CPS during Starmer’s tenure. That’s not to say he was involved or knew anything about them. | |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:37 - Jan 12 with 1827 views | DJR |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:38 - Jan 12 by GlasgowBlue |
That’s not strictly true. There were up to 38 prosecutions of post office operators initiated by the CPS during Starmer’s tenure. That’s not to say he was involved or knew anything about them. |
I heard Starmer interviewed yesterday. He said there were 3 cases during his tenure, and he knew nothing about them. He went on to say that there were 4 million cases when he was DPP and he couldn't be expected to know the details of every case.
That sounds pretty plausible to me, and what I heard is confirmed by this article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67950501 |  | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:41 - Jan 12 with 1798 views | blueasfook |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:37 - Jan 12 by DJR |
I heard Starmer interviewed yesterday. He said there were 3 cases during his tenure, and he knew nothing about them. He went on to say that there were 4 million cases when he was DPP and he couldn't be expected to know the details of every case.
That sounds pretty plausible to me, and what I heard is confirmed by this article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67950501 |
Indeed. The focus of this scandal needs to remain firmly on the main actors - the PO and Fujitsu. It seems the PO were lying to ministers anyway so I dont think any political figures were complicit in the whole thing. |  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:41 - Jan 12 with 1795 views | DJR |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:36 - Jan 12 by GlasgowBlue |
This would all makes sense if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s was a Labour government who gave
Fujitsu the £2.4bn lifetime contract with the Post Office for the Horizon system. The SNP government in Scotland also gave Fujitsu several contracts . |
Yes, outsourcing is the only game in town these days, and with few players there aren't necessarily alternatives. Hence Crapita (as Private Eye calls them) continuing to win contracts despite messing up on quite a few. [Post edited 12 Jan 9:42]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:45 - Jan 12 with 1760 views | blueasfook |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:41 - Jan 12 by DJR |
Yes, outsourcing is the only game in town these days, and with few players there aren't necessarily alternatives. Hence Crapita (as Private Eye calls them) continuing to win contracts despite messing up on quite a few. [Post edited 12 Jan 9:42]
|
Serco are the worst. They get loads of govt prison contracts despite losing quite a few prisoners over the years! | |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:57 - Jan 12 with 1708 views | DJR |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:45 - Jan 12 by blueasfook |
Serco are the worst. They get loads of govt prison contracts despite losing quite a few prisoners over the years! |
I forgot about Serco. | | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 09:58 - Jan 12 with 1695 views | keighleyblue |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:28 - Jan 12 by TownieRob |
Wasn't Mr. Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions when the cases came to light? In my view, no one emerges from this situation looking better than anyone else. |
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT |  | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 12:50 - Jan 12 with 1599 views | factual_blue |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:29 - Jan 12 by Zx1988 |
The key word is 'public'.
The Post Office prosecutions were private cases, hence the CPS (and Starmer) had ZERO involvement, despite what the client press wants you to think. |
There were two or three actually prosecuted by the CPS. The likelihood of Sir Keir having known anything about them is zero. To think otherwise betrays a woeful ignorance of major public sector organisations work. There's a huge degree of delegation, with individual cases only referred up to the next level in line with sets of clearly set out criteria.
Devastating though a prosecution would be for individual sub-postmasters, none of them were for the amounts of money that would require elevation for approval within CPS. I'd guess that an individual prosecution for theft/false accounting would have to be for a sum with a lot of noughts at the end to get as far as the Director of the CPS.
So, a very poor effort by townierob.
Shall we talk about non-exec Chairman of the Post Office at the time, who'd been previously been boris' number two (take that however you want) when the tousle-haired twerp was Mayor of London? [Post edited 12 Jan 12:50]
|  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 00:22 - Jan 13 with 1481 views | Ryorry |
If that isn't the smoking gun that does it, maybe this will be ..?
|  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 06:15 - Jan 13 with 1386 views | lurcher |
Fujitsu is a bit of a distraction in the post office scandal. All British government projects and programmes are run under a framework called Prince 2. Within that there will be a project or programme manager, a sponsoring executive, a senior supplier (responsible for building the product) and a senior user (someone representing the users). PM aside those three will all be senior managers or board members in the post office. A product of the project or programme can not go live unless there is a consensus of opinion between the Exec, SU and SS. When they agree that something can go live they accept ownership and responsibility. The fact that fujitsu built a ropey product is irrelevant. The failing is that the project or programme didn't adequately test the system before turning it live. not only did they not test it, it looks like they failed to ensure adequate user documentation was produced or verify that there was a correctly functioning support desk. It is ridiculous that this has bumbled along for so long. It is just one big cover up that seeks to protect senior post office staff. [Post edited 13 Jan 6:16]
|  | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 07:08 - Jan 13 with 1346 views | DanTheMan |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 06:15 - Jan 13 by lurcher |
Fujitsu is a bit of a distraction in the post office scandal. All British government projects and programmes are run under a framework called Prince 2. Within that there will be a project or programme manager, a sponsoring executive, a senior supplier (responsible for building the product) and a senior user (someone representing the users). PM aside those three will all be senior managers or board members in the post office. A product of the project or programme can not go live unless there is a consensus of opinion between the Exec, SU and SS. When they agree that something can go live they accept ownership and responsibility. The fact that fujitsu built a ropey product is irrelevant. The failing is that the project or programme didn't adequately test the system before turning it live. not only did they not test it, it looks like they failed to ensure adequate user documentation was produced or verify that there was a correctly functioning support desk. It is ridiculous that this has bumbled along for so long. It is just one big cover up that seeks to protect senior post office staff. [Post edited 13 Jan 6:16]
|
Fujitsu helped cover up issues by providing witnesses to trials that said the system worked as intended when they knew it didn't.
They held meetings with the Post Office on bugs they knew about and worked out ways to fix them whilst preserving the lie they had no remote access to the systems.
They told Parliament that people involved in the scandal would be sacked and then failed to do so.
They are very much not a distraction. |  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 07:28 - Jan 13 with 1321 views | Churchman |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 06:15 - Jan 13 by lurcher |
Fujitsu is a bit of a distraction in the post office scandal. All British government projects and programmes are run under a framework called Prince 2. Within that there will be a project or programme manager, a sponsoring executive, a senior supplier (responsible for building the product) and a senior user (someone representing the users). PM aside those three will all be senior managers or board members in the post office. A product of the project or programme can not go live unless there is a consensus of opinion between the Exec, SU and SS. When they agree that something can go live they accept ownership and responsibility. The fact that fujitsu built a ropey product is irrelevant. The failing is that the project or programme didn't adequately test the system before turning it live. not only did they not test it, it looks like they failed to ensure adequate user documentation was produced or verify that there was a correctly functioning support desk. It is ridiculous that this has bumbled along for so long. It is just one big cover up that seeks to protect senior post office staff. [Post edited 13 Jan 6:16]
|
This is a description of Prince 2.
https://www.prince2.com/uk/what-is-prince2
It is just a framework that is internationally used and recognised. It is not religiously followed in government or out of it and much of what it says is common sense anyway. It’s a base qualification for project people (incl me). Sort of basic guidance. But every project is different.
My very limited understanding of this is that the system bought and integrated was actually flawed from the off and had been turned down by somebody else (I need to read up on it). System testing and user acceptance testing? Obviously inadequate. But it goes far beyond that.
The disgrace for me is not yet another failed IT system but the process that led to so many peoples lives being ruined or worse. Who was seriously looking at this and how far up the food chain does it go? My suspicion is that it goes to the very top. People afraid to challenge (common in government), incompetence, short termism, arrogance, stupidity and greed. Hallmarks of governments for years.
My experience if Fujitsu? They were responsible for the IT systems where I worked. I thought they were useless. Who wrote the contracts? How and what they entailed, goodness knows. All I know is that every angle to make a profit that company shamelessly exploited from the vast cost of a single call to their useless helpline to the ramshackle systems themselves.
And who paid £millions for this? Ultimately the taxpayer - but not as much as those poor Post Office people. Who benefitted? Fujitsu, possibly third parties involved in implementation and certainly/most importantly politicians.
They should all be held to account, but like Covid, Brexit and every other disaster of their making, they won’t be. |  | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 07:58 - Jan 13 with 1288 views | lurcher |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 07:08 - Jan 13 by DanTheMan |
Fujitsu helped cover up issues by providing witnesses to trials that said the system worked as intended when they knew it didn't.
They held meetings with the Post Office on bugs they knew about and worked out ways to fix them whilst preserving the lie they had no remote access to the systems.
They told Parliament that people involved in the scandal would be sacked and then failed to do so.
They are very much not a distraction. |
The system should never have been turned live. Maybe the system did work as intended, what did the requirements look like? If we are looking for anyone to be accountable it can only be the people who take the major decisions and that is the senior program staff, who were senior program staff. [Post edited 13 Jan 8:10]
| | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:02 - Jan 13 with 1280 views | bracknell_blue |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:36 - Jan 12 by GlasgowBlue |
This would all makes sense if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s was a Labour government who gave
Fujitsu the £2.4bn lifetime contract with the Post Office for the Horizon system. The SNP government in Scotland also gave Fujitsu several contracts . |
Listening to Alastair Campbell on The Rest is Politics, he said that the Blair Govt tried to take the contract away from Fujitsu , but the clauses in the contract relating to this (a contract from the previous Tory Govt) was such that the cost of doing this was GREATER than the contract value. So, on grounds of being prudent with public money, they stuck with them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't! |  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 08:09 - Jan 13 with 1255 views | lurcher |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 07:28 - Jan 13 by Churchman |
This is a description of Prince 2.
https://www.prince2.com/uk/what-is-prince2
It is just a framework that is internationally used and recognised. It is not religiously followed in government or out of it and much of what it says is common sense anyway. It’s a base qualification for project people (incl me). Sort of basic guidance. But every project is different.
My very limited understanding of this is that the system bought and integrated was actually flawed from the off and had been turned down by somebody else (I need to read up on it). System testing and user acceptance testing? Obviously inadequate. But it goes far beyond that.
The disgrace for me is not yet another failed IT system but the process that led to so many peoples lives being ruined or worse. Who was seriously looking at this and how far up the food chain does it go? My suspicion is that it goes to the very top. People afraid to challenge (common in government), incompetence, short termism, arrogance, stupidity and greed. Hallmarks of governments for years.
My experience if Fujitsu? They were responsible for the IT systems where I worked. I thought they were useless. Who wrote the contracts? How and what they entailed, goodness knows. All I know is that every angle to make a profit that company shamelessly exploited from the vast cost of a single call to their useless helpline to the ramshackle systems themselves.
And who paid £millions for this? Ultimately the taxpayer - but not as much as those poor Post Office people. Who benefitted? Fujitsu, possibly third parties involved in implementation and certainly/most importantly politicians.
They should all be held to account, but like Covid, Brexit and every other disaster of their making, they won’t be. |
So I am a Prince2 practitioner. It is a formal project management process that was developed by and is used by the british government. Commercially people borrow from it but the government always follows it religiously. Which is why the costs for things like HS2 and navy's aircraft carriers spiral out of control. In terms of IT I do this sort of thing for a living in the investment banking industry, with far bigger systems. At the end of the day the public want people to be held to account. It was a failed project or programme of work where leadership were negligent turning the thing live. It was for the programme board to ensure that the system was fit for purpose before rolling it out. When they turned it live they took responsibility, fujitsu were a third party and it was for the PO to independently test the system before rolling it out. It has to work this way else if an inadequate system is turned live, blame becomes impossible to apportion as we get trapped in a cycle of poor requirements and we built what you asked for. Like we are now. It should be the senior management in the PO working on this project going to prison.
The board of the programme should have been in prison years ago. Everything that happened was done to cover up their negligence. So the Exec, the senior user and senior supplier must have had a concern in covering up their mistakes. Of course that isn't everything but those three people should already be in prison and brought in to subsequnet trials eastbalishing how the cover up played out. [Post edited 13 Jan 8:23]
| | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 10:42 - Jan 13 with 1154 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 00:22 - Jan 13 by Ryorry |
If that isn't the smoking gun that does it, maybe this will be ..?
|
How convenient it would be for the Post Office to be declared insolvent and shut down.
Unless you are a Former Postmistress or Postmaster still hoping for compensation, of course. | | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 10:45 - Jan 13 with 1119 views | DanTheMan |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 07:58 - Jan 13 by lurcher |
The system should never have been turned live. Maybe the system did work as intended, what did the requirements look like? If we are looking for anyone to be accountable it can only be the people who take the major decisions and that is the senior program staff, who were senior program staff. [Post edited 13 Jan 8:10]
|
There weren't good requirements, from what little I've read, it started off using RAD principles (which was in-vogue at the time) and then as with all major software projects, people couldn't decide what they wanted it to do.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that we should be prosecuting the average developer, but the higher-ups and Fujistu and people involved in the project knew what was happening and were helping with the coverup.
I say this as someone who has also worked on large IT projects as a software engineer, so from the other side as yourself. [Post edited 13 Jan 10:46]
| |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 10:52 - Jan 13 with 1073 views | lurcher |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 10:45 - Jan 13 by DanTheMan |
There weren't good requirements, from what little I've read, it started off using RAD principles (which was in-vogue at the time) and then as with all major software projects, people couldn't decide what they wanted it to do.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that we should be prosecuting the average developer, but the higher-ups and Fujistu and people involved in the project knew what was happening and were helping with the coverup.
I say this as someone who has also worked on large IT projects as a software engineer, so from the other side as yourself. [Post edited 13 Jan 10:46]
|
No the senior leadership are to blame. If projects or programmes go bad, it normally starts with inadequate requirements | | | |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 11:43 - Jan 13 with 1007 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 10:52 - Jan 13 by lurcher |
No the senior leadership are to blame. If projects or programmes go bad, it normally starts with inadequate requirements |
Correct me if I'm wrong (as is most likely) but the high level history of the Horizon system seems to have been something like:
Developed for one purpose (benefit payments?)
Found to be not fit for purpose
Re-purposed ("we've spent all this money already, so ...") as the Postmasters' accounting system
Post-re-purposing:
There seems to have been little to no requirements documentation prior to the re-purposing
What lower level documentation there was seems to have been reverse engineered from the code
I have seen nothing about risk statements nor acceptance of these so can only assume known risks were insufficiently documented (if documented at all)
Testing (always a target for timescale cuts when projects are running late) and training are below the levels one might expect for a project of this size, complexity and importance
So as you say. Where were the project board?
Even a project that is using Prince 2 as the guidance it claims to be would surely have stopped this in its tracks, let alone a project following Prince 2 to the letter.
In the end it seems to all have come down to protecting the PO "brand". That went well. |  |
| |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 13:04 - Jan 13 with 928 views | lurcher |
| Is this the smoking gun that finally brings them down? on 11:43 - Jan 13 by You_Bloo_Right |
Correct me if I'm wrong (as is most likely) but the high level history of the Horizon system seems to have been something like:
Developed for one purpose (benefit payments?)
Found to be not fit for purpose
Re-purposed ("we've spent all this money already, so ...") as the Postmasters' accounting system
Post-re-purposing:
There seems to have been little to no requirements documentation prior to the re-purposing
What lower level documentation there was seems to have been reverse engineered from the code
I have seen nothing about risk statements nor acceptance of these so can only assume known risks were insufficiently documented (if documented at all)
Testing (always a target for timescale cuts when projects are running late) and training are below the levels one might expect for a project of this size, complexity and importance
So as you say. Where were the project board?
Even a project that is using Prince 2 as the guidance it claims to be would surely have stopped this in its tracks, let alone a project following Prince 2 to the letter.
In the end it seems to all have come down to protecting the PO "brand". That went well. |
It just seems incredible to me that a system like this would have been released without adequate testing. Maybe the people running it didn't understand software delivery or contracting a 3rd party to build something. Even then Prince2 has a formal step for selecting the board, so why didn't they know what they were doing? The whole project must have been a terrible mess from start to finish. The people responsible for the delivery just rolled it out and then covered up the fact it didn't work correctly. It should have been rolled back, but they just kept digging a hole and covering everything up. What started out as being criminally negligent has become fraud. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
