The BCS is a joke filled by members that are computer industry wannabes and has beens.

No suprise that some thicko working there made such a simple mistake!

"A spokeswoman for the BCS said: "This is a simple case of human error"

"Anyone could make the same mistake. "

But not every one runs around lording it over everyone else. Back to earth with a bump you holier-than-though, pompous A$Society..

How does that feel then.

I love the stupidity of the recepients - every time this happen some tool hits the reply all button, then another tool, then before you know it all the idiots are at it.

A silly mistake componded by lots of stupid people. Love it.

...is quite bad enough on its own, *without* the inevitable horde of idiots who use "reply to all" instead of just "reply".

It's hard to decide who is the feebler mind in this case: the computer society who has never heard of mailing list software with access and posting controls, or the recipients who cannot distinguish between "Reply" and "Reply-To-All".

Perhaps this is one of those self-selecting groups, like Mensa, with membership criteria that reward delusions of adequacy rather than actual knowledge.

Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear....

What a gaff... and it proves they are still sending them out "by hand"...

Sometimes the BCS look like complete muppets, I remember being once asked for my credit card details via email by someone in the membership department dealing with renewals!

They should start to staff the place with people who have to meet the same standards as those of us who are already professionals!

Come on BCS get your act together...

"This is just a pointless email to say sorry about the huge volume of pointless emails you got as a result of our first pointless email."

Ok can all the idiots using 'Reply to all' please stop? Go and whine amoungst eachother and quit spamming my inbox.

Also, where's this supposed BCS apology mail?

Quite why I pay my BCS subscription, I don't know. Toilet roll is cheaper, more effective and keeps your constitution healther than an £80 a year membership bill does.

Your apology mail was only sent to people that hit Reply To All. Send one now and you should get it soon.

What I would do is send the apology email to every without using BCC again! :o)

Some might appreciate the irony.

long ago I thought it'd be a good idea to get accredited and some letters after my name - not BCS but C.Eng.... so I joined the BCS. Turned out the annual fee was only the start, all the special interest groups wanted their own fees, I would have to join some of them in order to satisfy the membership and get the C.Eng bit after due course. I couldn't find any SIGs which were of any interest and reasonably local, those which were interesting wanted lots of money and far from Cambridge. So, I never joined any, and after a year didn't bother to renew my membership. I'd have been better off spending my money on some a few good technical books (or beer!).

so, to answer my own question, no. I think I'd give the money to the EFF or PCG instead.

I have fond memories of a nice chat with the BCS regarding them being completely out of touch with IT in general, their 'exams' being a total waste of time, and my amusement at them equating several years of experience with 3 years at University boozing it up and learning irrelevant rubbish.

I must confess bitterness, I was looking into BCS membership to carry over to another country when emmigrating, however being a network engineer sadly my database and management skills were a bit lacking so no point taking their exams.

The fact they have questions about the basics of everything in IT, pointless for a job but clearly relevant to them, in their exams but don't know how to send email amuses.

So that's how those folks send me emails where I can't see my own address in them? I think I'm going to start collecting addresses so I can do the same. What a silly bunt.

They spammed me the other day with this. No doubt their names will soon be appearing on this site, whilst the rest of us "spread the word" by other means.

Of course you also have to think of the recipients as idiots... not the people it was SENT to, but the people that ACTUALLY RECEIVED it... hands up anyone who's spam filter lets through a message with a list of 700 recipients? hands up again all of you who put your hands up thinking that I might be able to tell that you put your hands up... now, keep those hands up so that they're away from the keyboard (and mouse) - the internet has enough idiots, so please stay away.

/Rant

This whole thing reminds me of the exchange server pop3 collector bug which would receive an email with hundreds of recipients, then choose to send it out again, and of course with the same address being on the list it will come back in and go out again and again and again... Oh the joys of blocking Mickeysoft servers run by Mickey Mouse admins.

Would be to start hanging the admins of incorrectly set up mailinglists to dry.

This "reply to all" habit comes from two things:

-Mailinglists that incorrectly doesn't set the "reply-to:" header to their own submission adress.

-Companies using Microsoft Exchange.

Both things are the tell-tale sign of someone not so competent on IT things as they should be to ask for professionalism in IT. Maybe they should start cleaning out their own people and workplaces before they act as loudmouths and yell at all of the business.

//Svein

It used to be the BCS would make you a member simply by paying your dues. Much like the American ACM or IEEE today. Now, they require all their "members" to do exams, pass courses, and generally pretend to be more knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, the BCS grandfathered all the "members by payment" into the system. So you now have a society whose senior members didn't have to show any competence, and those members are lording it over, and running the show for, those people who did have to show a modicum of competence.

From what's happened here and elsewhere, it seems that the people running the show at BCS really don't have a clue about IT, or what it takes to run a "tight ship" in the IT world. Maybe they should be made to take their own exams, for once? Making such stupid errors really speaks volumes about their commitment to IT in general, vs their commitment to sucking as much cash as possible from their members.

Its early days yet for the British Computer Society. They've only really been around for a few decades as a semi-profession. Public Relations people have been around a century or so and they've barely reached the point of having examinations to cover the basics. Plus of course IT changes so fast that there simply isn't any point in covering anything specialist for any systems because the transferability of such knowledge is nearly zero, within a couple of years it'd be like demanding that car mechanics have a working knowledge of a Ford Model T.

The basis of a professional body is a foundation of shared basic knowledge (which the BCS examinations are meant to show), and the acceptance of certain minimal professional standards (my favourite from the BCS is not doing HR systems for dictatorships, because back in the day they used to organise them for torturing dissidents. One idly wonders if today I should turn down similar work for the US Marine Corps at Guantanamo or the British Army is Basra on the same basis).

The aim is that in theory if you talk to a BCS member you should receive a nuanced and carefully considered opinion, even if that opinion is that the BCS member themselves cannot do the work and you should speak to someone else, who they can put you in contact with via the BCS. The basis of being a member of a profession is that the professional walks away from work that they cannot do well.

After that the BCS provides relevant IT input into government (significantly less than well paid IT consultancies) and that's about it. Making a mistake on an email is neither here nor there.

>Plus of course IT changes so fast that there simply isn't any point in covering anything specialist for any systems because the transferability of such knowledge is nearly zero

> within a couple of years it'd be like demanding that car mechanics have a working knowledge of a Ford Model T.

This is the kind of GCSE level junk that would probably be in their exam.

It's absolute nonsense.

We get emails from professional bodies and councils all the time (well, a couple of times a week) sent to a mailing list by just copying the address book into the To: field.

> Quite why I pay my BCS subscription, I don't know. Toilet roll is cheaper,

> more effective and keeps your constitution healther than an £80 a year

> membership bill does.

I've stopped giving them money for nothing a long time ago, and instead pay ACM and IEEE CompSoc - at least you get some magazines that are worth reading!

I had a similar email from one of the Big Four audting companies recently. The email carried the subject line "Information Security in the Financial Sector" but unfortunately, they also committed the cardinal sin of including all recipient addresses in the 'To' field.

It was a simple mistake, but considering the subject line and keeping in mind the likely recipients, it was quite a blunder :-)

Hands up who wants to take advice on Information Security from the company that did this?

I personally blame the "Bored of your job? Don't have any career prospects? Get a job in IT!" adverts!!!

A few years ago, they sent me their records of my entire membership profile, so that I could check them for correctness. These records included my National Insurance number, address, phone numbers, email addresses, etc.

But they sent it along with their rag, "The Bulletin", in a CLEAR celophane wrapper, with every detail clearly visible to everyone!

And they have the nerve to preach to the industry about information privacy and security.