Post office compensation scheme

[JohnB]

I think its impossible to get at the truth now, so you need to give the PMs the benefit of the doubt, with the presumption of innocence rather than guilt which is at the heart of the English legal system.

You certainly can't judge the reluctance of people scarred by the process to appeal as an admission of guilt.

I didn't vote in the poll because I thought its wording badly biased.

[UncleEbenezer]

I didn't vote in the poll because I thought its wording badly biased.

I voted "other" for that reason. See my post above.

[UncleEbenezer]

The infected blood scandal has been dragging on for over 40 years now,

That one bothers me a bit. Not sure I understand how it qualifies as a scandal.

The basic issue is that
(a) If the patients had not been treated, they would expect to have died pretty rapidly.
(b) At the time, there was no alternative treatment available in sufficient quantities to treat all the patients.

So keeping them alive by the only method available was a scandal?

[redsturgeon]

Whatever they do just needs to be done quickly.

[stewamax]

... and for compensation in a different sense, the wrongly prosecuted SPMs would likely want to see the malefactors in the PO (and possibly Fujitsu) prosecuted themselves.

But before that, I myself would like to see Ms Vennells and colleagues being taken apart in the Inquiry by the urbane Jason Beer KC. It is unfortunate that the other excellent silk there - Kate Gallafent - is already retained by the PO...

[scotia]

... and for compensation in a different sense, the wrongly prosecuted SPMs would likely want to see the malefactors in the PO (and possibly Fujitsu) prosecuted themselves.

How about all of the legal staff associated with the prosecution being required to return all of their associated payments.
And to be balanced, all of the software team responsible for the issue of such defective software should return all of their payments (although I suspect they will be significantly smaller than the legal payments )

[didds]

all of the software team responsible for the issue of such defective software should return all of their payments (although I suspect they will be significantly smaller than the legal payments )

I'd be a bit <expletive> off if as a junior developer under the instructions of others and with no vision of the maelstrom that was occurring at board level was made to pay back my salary for the years i worked for fujitsu (Thank goodness Im a sys admin ...)

[scotia]

all of the software team responsible for the issue of such defective software should return all of their payments (although I suspect they will be significantly smaller than the legal payments )

I'd be a bit <expletive> off if as a junior developer under the instructions of others and with no vision of the maelstrom that was occurring at board level was made to pay back my salary for the years i worked for fujitsu (Thank goodness Im a sys admin ...)

However I feel that those, at the higher levels, that released the software with inadequate warnings of its failings, deserve some penalties.
So who's to blame at the software end, why did it happen? I'll make a guess -
I'll relate once again the (wo)man-month myth in software development. The project is running behind schedule - so more developers are employed, and it falls even further behind as the current developers have to stop development to explain how the system works (or doesn't) to the new employees. And it takes a substantial time before the new developers understand how their work interfaces with the substantial work already completed (tested or not). I suspect there was a bit of this in the project, and it led to disgruntled turnover of developers with even longer delays, and large sections of code that no one understood. However its just my guess.
And my solution - you need a (small) tightly bound, dedicated (well paid on results) core that sees the project through - and takes the blame if it doesn't.
As a one-man, independent, software developer for major companies I made sure that my software worked - before I was paid.

[chrissyr]

Worked or did what the spec said

Not dissing you just coders work to specs if the spec is wrong not their fault (although I have (as PM not spec writer) to explain to a coder once that just that the spec didn't mention Sundays doesn't mean they don't exist)

[scotia]

Worked or did what the spec said

Not dissing you just coders work to specs if the spec is wrong not their fault (although I have (as PM not spec writer) to explain to a coder once that just that the spec didn't mention Sundays doesn't mean they don't exist)

I remember a company who quoted to spec at a low price - to get the contract, then after it was installed (working to spec) the users realised that they really needed a number of changes and additions which they hadn't thought carefully enough about when creating the spec. And the company made most of their profits on carrying out these changes - where there was no competition.
On software bugs - it sometimes takes a long time before they show up. There was an obvious bug in the Premium Bonds Prize Checker earlier today (i.e in the early hours) where it correctly stated that the March results were in, and on entering your code you correctly received notification of the March result, but they called it the February result. A leap year bug? It has been corrected.
And in another software package, I recollect that it displayed spurious messages on April Fool's day - a coder brightening up a dull day?

[didds]

I'd be a bit <expletive> off if as a junior developer under the instructions of others and with no vision of the maelstrom that was occurring at board level was made to pay back my salary for the years i worked for fujitsu (Thank goodness Im a sys admin ...)

However I feel that those, at the higher levels, that released the software with inadequate warnings of its failings, deserve some penalties.
.

I dont have a problem with that - ie the decision makers get the punishment. But that wasn't the original suggestion to which i responded

[stockton]

I had a quick look at three cases rejected by the Court of Appeal. As the court recounts the cases it seems sensible to reject the appeals, but does anyone really believe that someone intent on stealing would make 700 calls to a helpline ?