9
« Last post by agricola on 17 May 2024, 08:49:50 pm »
It appears to me (could be completely wrong) that the system was faulty from day 1, and that Fujitsu had remote editing functions from day 1 too. Neither of these points were brought to the attention of the PO until pressure began to filter through to it from the subbies who were being dragged through the courts, and worse. Once the various internal and external audits of the system were brought to the attention of the PO, they could (and should) at that stage have said fair cop guv. But they chose to try to suppress and control the problem to prevent reputational damage. Appallingly, many senior company representatives and members of the legal profession continued to try (and succeed) in subverting the justice system, knowing that the subbies wr=ere being convicted because they were witholding evidence that would have proven otherwise. I hope that at the end of this, the subbies are re-imbursed for their losses and compensated accordingly, and that those who subverted and misled are denied their freedom, bankrupted with their assets shared among the subbies, and barred from ever holding responsible positions again
Recent Posts