What very strange notions you have

All systems are subject to the mercy of human input. Since this can err by definition Cap Gemini will have made error unless staffed by people who are not human

But if Cap Gemini is staffed by humans they would know that to err is possible. To then design a system where error could not be corrected would be to err. So they are at fault

But conclude (as many on the Right do) that government is defective because it is staffed by human beings is the oddest assumption of all

Of course, with a name like yours you may indeed not be human. Which is why this fruitless debate based on your fallacious logic is now closed

Richard

No systems that do allow correction are prone to security issues…you would think a large and important public database needs security first or does the government want flexibility?

When the record is on the database fine, then you can have the best of both worlds, as you can roll back the database in part of section, but if the data is not correct from the original record then you are up shit creek. Its the nature of the systems, they are always at the mercy of Human Input, or do you think this can be bypassed?

Cap gemini NOT GUILTY.

If you call a piece of software that does not allow the correction of mistakes ‘fit for purpose’ you have a strange view of software

All systems are subject to human input error. Systems that do not allow them to be corrected are defective.

Yes, I say quite emphatically that Cap Gemini were at fault if that is the case

Richard

from your link.
” An anonymous former tax official was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying that tax credit files were input incorrectly into systems, and were unable to be changed later. Staff then added new versions of the files with corrected information, but could not remove the files, thus creating the problem, the former official said. ”

Now how is that Capgemini fault?