191–200 of 276 posts
Why are judges ignoring the very foundations upon which our justice systems were built?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The coverup is worse than the crime" is a terrible effect. But it can happen from: * smaller-fry butt-covering (e.g., lower-level function trying to cover their own butt, putting larger org at risk of much higher cost to the org); * arrogance (e.g., individual/org thinks they are in the right and justified in escalating countermeasures); * bully-like confidence (e.g., individual/org thinks they are powerful enough t…
There seemed to be a culture in Fujitsu where incompetent and judgemental people were allowed to rule the roost. The best example of this is the testimony of one Peter Sewell, who never met one of the victims but who, in an email, called him a “nasty chap” and that he was out to “rubbish the FJ name”. You can see how he realises the enormity of his stupidity in testimony and tries to half heartedly defend himself (un…
Sounds like he was using a different sense of the term "integrity" than I was.
Figuratively, like integrity of a physical barrier, to the (claimed) attack of this other person.
"...witness statements from Fujitsu staff due to be heard in court were then edited by the Post Office..." I hope there is serious jail time and fines for the persons that did this. Bonkers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bugs are inevitable. Yes But accounting software that gets totals wrong is not inevitable Entirely avoidable
And can't the numbers be, I dunno, audited?!!?!!? WTF. Like, did all these numbers just get spit out to a jury and then these people were prosecuted? How in the hell?????
Just sayin' ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes totally but shouldn’t it have been the prosecution that hired forensic accountants in order to, well, prosecute
In the UK, private parties can prosecute people. The Post office was doing this. As a citizen of the USA, this is a completely alien concept to me. How can a corporation put a person in prison?
Until the 1980s this was how almost all criminal prosecutions worked in England, though by the end the "private prosecutor" was usually a police officer.
"Patterson also told Parliament members that Fujitsu has "a moral obligation" to contribute to the compensation for victims." How often do you hear a suit talk of their "moral obligation"? That really struck me. So true So often we (computer programmers) get to walk away free and clear from the cluster fucks that arrive from our mistakes
unfortunately, a moral obligation is about the least powerful type of obligation there is.
Please note I have no dog in this fight, just generally curious if anyone knows more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK, private parties can prosecute people. The Post office was doing this. As a citizen of the USA, this is a completely alien concept to me. How can a corporation put a person in prison?
A lawyer paid by the private party fills the role of the government prosecutor, but the case is heard by the same judge and jury who would hear it in a state prosecution. Until the 1980s this was how almost all criminal prosecutions worked in England, though by the end the "private prosecutor" was usually a police officer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've yet to meet any Christians who don't contradict other Christians, while being 100% convinced their personal beliefs are correct and all those other interpretations are wrong. Christian means "Christ-like", it's not surprising that different people have different interpretations of what that means. But my experience has been the stronger someone proclaims their christianity, the less trustworthy they are in gen…
Jesus himself said that worship of God is a thing that is private. That those who loudly proclaim or make public displays of their faith are straying from the path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On criminal trial, not in prison. In this case they ended up getting guilty pleas in exchange for 'promises' of leniency. That sounds like 'putting people in prison using leverage' to me. With an imbalance between resources of the entity going after you and what you have available, I would say the giant corp will win the overwhelming majority of the time. The problem is that they have every incentive to push people…
I mean, many others have used the same tactics with civil suits—being stripped of all of one’s money might be marginally better than being put in prison, but I’d argue it’s still on the same spectrum, so it makes for a hell of a lot of leverage. So I don’t think this works as an argument against private prosecutors—it’s rather an argument against a legal system that necessitates ruinously expensive lawyers, which is…
So if one thing is terrible let's use that to justify something worse?