The moment when Berry says “the programme which you claim to love so much” is so indicative of the mindset of a certain breed of modern politician, absolutely no need to be that confrontational and snide but he just cannot help himself
The only way he could look like any more of a cock is if he spent the whole programme lying in a hammock dribbling over porn mags.What on earth did that gormless Tory dimwit even think he was doing, trying to argue with Ian Hislop about this subject?
And why exactly should he be given immunity?Gareth Jenkins, architect of Post Office scandal, demands immunity
The former Fujitsu engineer's testimony about the faulty Horizon IT system was central to convictionswww.telegraph.co.uk
Interesting development…
Is anyone claiming he's 'behind this'? Did he do anything wrong (like lie in court), and if not, why is he asking for immunity?If you really think the 'Head Technical Architect' at Fujitsu is behind this, I have some beans I really think would interest you
You're taking the phrase "behind this" far too literally.Is anyone claiming he's 'behind this'? Did he do anything wrong (like lie in court), and if not, why is he asking for immunity?
I suspect some of us are speaking from our own work in large corporates on complex IT system developments where, in most cases, a technical architect will have been some distance from post-implementation support, bug remediation and ongoing system maintenance. By that time, they will have probably moved onto other projects or, at least, another phase of the same project.You're taking the phrase "behind this" far too literally.
All we know is that he's asked for immunity. WZ is merely contending that a technical architect has no case to answer anyway. He's probably right. At worst, he's crap at his job. He's not responsible for the widespread lies, obfuscation, arse covering, implementing a bonus culture that ignores the innocent little guy and so on that are at the core of this shocking case.
Is anyone claiming he's 'behind this'? Did he do anything wrong (like lie in court), and if not, why is he asking for immunity?
You're taking the phrase "behind this" far too literally.
All we know is that he's asked for immunity. WZ is merely contending that a technical architect has no case to answer anyway. He's probably right. At worst, he's crap at his job.
If he's way out of his depth regarding the how the system is coded, why was he the one who was giving testimony to assure courts that it was working correctly?I suspect the reason he'll be asking for immunity is that he'll recognise he's way out of his depth when dealing with the 'skills' of people who did the above.
It doesn't seem odd to ask for immunity to me. If I was him having seen all this unfold, I'd have no faith that justice was going to be done either.If he has no case to answer, that's great, and he should just help the inquiry. It seems odd for someone in that position, with no case to answer, to ask for immunity. The reason I've then taken the phrase literally, is because I don't see how anyone here can be so confident he has no case to answer. Is it not possible that he knew there were issues with the system? Is it not possible that he raised concerns with the post office? Is it not possible that he was asked to ignore those concerns, and he would be well paid for his time giving testimony?
I'm not suggesting he's guilty of anything, but I'm not completely confident he's not, and him asking for immunity seems wrong to me.
If he has no case to answer, that's great, and he should just help the inquiry. It seems odd for someone in that position, with no case to answer, to ask for immunity. The reason I've then taken the phrase literally, is because I don't see how anyone here can be so confident he has no case to answer. Is it not possible that he knew there were issues with the system? Is it not possible that he raised concerns with the post office? Is it not possible that he was asked to ignore those concerns, and he would be well paid for his time giving testimony?
I'm not suggesting he's guilty of anything, but I'm not completely confident he's not, and him asking for immunity seems wrong to me.
If he's way out of his depth regarding the how the system is coded, why was he the one who was giving testimony to assure courts that it was working correctly?
I agree.Whatever you, or your auditor friend 'know' about the conviction, it's extremely unlikely that Horizon, as their cash accounting mechanism, will not have been used in the prosecution. In which case it's highly likely that prosecution was unsafe....
Can be watched live here-The Public Inquiry reconvenes today after their Christmas break and, obviously, is going to be somewhat higher-profile now.
The issues aren't about the architecture of the system or how it was designed or coded, all new systems have bugs and faults, that is entirely normal. The issue is entirely about the management decisions made around the way the system was implemented with regard to timing and risk, supported, maintained etc etc and then the subsequent cover up and convictions, things I wouldn't normally expect a technical architect to be involved in.
I think there are two distinct things at play here...The government is wanting to stick an elastoplast over the problem, say there there, and here's some money to make up for it.