I agree she did wrong and ought to have some penalty but she has got kids and they will end up being punished as well,I dont think thats right.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/headlines/Mother-jailed-for-50000-benefit.3558397.jp

but she has got kids and they will end up being punished as well


That's debatable. I would say that taking them away from a criminal and giving them to an honest family for fostering/adoption, is actually benefiting them, rather than punishing them.

It's a shame to see a good person go down for such a pointless crime - she could have got help from charities because she was looking after her deceased sister's children.

It's a shame to see a good person go down for such a pointless crime - she could have got help from charities because she was looking after her deceased sister's children.

Yes it seems harsh to me,poor woman.:(

Makes no difference if they have kids in my book. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. End of.

Yes it seems harsh to me,poor woman.:(

I doubt it seems harsh to the people she's stolen this fifty grand from. A year in jail for that scale of theft seems about right.

A jail sentence should prove to be a suitable deterrent

So the kids get taken into care ,how is that a good thing? no she ought to have been given community work instead,that way the kids will not be affected.

Bet she won't be doing the whole year...3 months ?

So the kids get taken into care ,how is that a good thing? no she ought to have been given community work instead,that way the kids will not be affected.

Understood, but she stole a huge amount of money, that would take most ordinary folk a lifetime to earn.

Nothing less than a jail sentence would be a good enough deterrent.

I can only assume that as a mother of young children she didn't expect to be sent down for stealing £50,000 of taxpayers money.

Well, maybe people will think twice before pulling the same scam

Understood, but she stole a huge amount of money, that would take most ordinary folk a lifetime to earn.

Nothing less than a jail sentence would be a good enough deterrent.

I can only assume that as a mother of young children she didn't expect to be sent down for stealing £50,000 of taxpayers money.

Well, maybe people will think twice before pulling the same scam

:clap: Totally agree with you. As a parent she should be setting a good example to her children. Just remember folks that is £50,000 that should have been used to help people in real need.

Would hacking off one of her toes be a more suitable punishment? That way she would be able to keep her liberty and look after the children but whenever she removed her shoes she would have a permanent reminder of her evil crimes.

Theft is theft
Its no different to her say robbing a bank
It is a crime she deserves it, she should have thought about the children before she did it

Understood, but she stole a huge amount of money, that would take most ordinary folk a lifetime to earn.

Nothing less than a jail sentence would be a good enough deterrent.

I can only assume that as a mother of young children she didn't expect to be sent down for stealing £50,000 of taxpayers money.

Well, maybe people will think twice before pulling the same scam

Yeah I agree with you on this completely - what i meant in my post was that she seemed to be a really nice person in the rest of her life so it seems a real shame for her to do something this silly.

I can't help but think that she might have really needed the money?But like I said in the other post, she had other alternatives and unfortunatly the crime does warrant a prison sentence.

Makes no difference if they have kids in my book. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. End of.

Me too :thumbsup:

Who knows her personal situation,she might have real issues to deal with? I cant beleive how heartless some of you are.

Who knows her personal situation,she might have real issues to deal with? I cant beleive how heartless some of you are.

She wasn't caught stealing a loaf of bread from the Co-op. We are talking £50,000 here!

What was she goona do? Build another house?!

There are two types of stealing - for need and for greed

And this is clearly an example of the latter.

The court knows her circumstances and decided that prison was appropriate.

Would hacking off one of her toes be a more suitable punishment? That way she would be able to keep her liberty and look after the children but whenever she removed her shoes she would have a permanent reminder of her evil crimes.

Not exactly an evil crime Basil but still £50 grand is a fair old pot to knick, I know this ladie personally and she is not alone in doing this.
This scam is happening all over the country and perhaps now others will learn from it anyhow I still think a year is a bit harsh though she will only serve less than half of that.
Community service would have been adiquate, she hurt nobody, she did wrong but i have seen people convicted of agrovated burglery do less than that.

Maybe she didn't "hurt anyone" so to speak, but I bet she pi**ed off a lot of taxpayers.

Perhaps we should shame benefit fraudsters by making it a condition of rehabilitation that they have an extra buttock grafted onto their bottom. Thus every time you saw someone with three buttocks you'd know instantly they were a benefit cheat! Just imagine the shame of that.........

Hi All

These poor kids shouldn have to suffer because of a crime mum did. Mum mus have been desperate. the judge who dealt with this case in court is the real baddy. how can he allow the kids to wake up on christmas morning wihout mum being there. Wicked judge

I paid £150 in tax on my last weeks pay cheque, I'd rather it go to a financially-confused Sheffield Mum than those overpaid/scroungers at Westminster.

She ought to have done community service.

And I'll get the ball rolling by offering a tenner to help the kids

the courts are suppose to send people to prison to put people of reoffending or if they are a danger to public clearly this is not the case here. IF this the womans first offence the sentence is way over the top and I have no doubt if she appeals the sentence will be reduced. No way can anybody class this "crime" the same as muggiing or burgarly in actual fact it is classed as social crime. an the amount is of no consequence when it come to the sentence.
another thing to take into account the scc will recover every penny of the lost revenue an all the benefits recieved will be clawed back from any future benefits she recieves.So in the long run she will not actually make a penny and none of us will lose out financially
We all must remember if the house had been in her partners name he would have been prosecuted also he must also shoulder some of the blame but in the "laws eyes" they are powerless to do anything to him.
the sentence of one year in jail was not warranted in this particular case.

Are you all aware that she will be free in approx three months anyway with 6 months remission and she will serve three months in prison and then three months on "Tag" there is every chance she will be in open prison within a couple of weeks and within the month working in the community in some old peoples home somewhere in the UK this is a fact. IMO the sentence was excessive and serves as no detterent because she would not have done the same again because it would be almost impossible to commit the same "crime"

Hi All

These poor kids shouldn have to suffer because of a crime mum did. Mum mus have been desperate. the judge who dealt with this case in court is the real baddy. how can he allow the kids to wake up on christmas morning wihout mum being there. Wicked judge

I think the Judge was quite fair in this case.

The mother should have thought of her children before committing the crime.

I'd even go as far as to say that her council house / flat should be re-allocated to someone in genuine need of one, and that when she 'gets out' she shouldn't be entitled to another one.

More of these people need to made examples of. Only by being tough on benefit fraud can we hope to manage the ever increasing demands placed upon our benefits system. There is only so much money in the pot, and theiving scum like this 'lady', in effect, actually take the money from the most needy members of our society.

I'd be glad to contribute an extra 1% in income tax to set up more prisons for these fraudsters.

Its no wonder the prisons are full when we send people like this to prison,the sentence is way over the top .

Old Alf:

"Listen, I am sick to my gut of all these bloody scroungers who won't do an honest day's work and just sponge of all the rest of us. If I paid tax on my fags I would resent it being spent on the idle which is why i don't pay it".

Ladies and gentleman, old Alf has left the building. Thank you very much.

Hi All

These poor kids shouldn have to suffer because of a crime mum did. Mum mus have been desperate. the judge who dealt with this case in court is the real baddy. how can he allow the kids to wake up on christmas morning wihout mum being there. Wicked judge


So if you have kids you are allowed to steal 50K?:loopy:
I've children if I enter your property and steal 50K from you, would you still think the same?? Of course you wouldn't, so why it o.k. to steal from the state? No wonder the country is in the state it is?

the courts are suppose to send people to prison to put people of reoffending or if they are a danger to public clearly this is not the case here. IF this the womans first offence the sentence is way over the top and I have no doubt if she appeals the sentence will be reduced. No way can anybody class this "crime" the same as muggiing or burgarly in actual fact it is classed as social crime. an the amount is of no consequence when it come to the sentence.
another thing to take into account the scc will recover every penny of the lost revenue an all the benefits recieved will be clawed back from any future benefits she recieves.So in the long run she will not actually make a penny and none of us will lose out financially
We all must remember if the house had been in her partners name he would have been prosecuted also he must also shoulder some of the blame but in the "laws eyes" they are powerless to do anything to him.
the sentence of one year in jail was not warranted in this particular case.

Are you all aware that she will be free in approx three months anyway with 6 months remission and she will serve three months in prison and then three months on "Tag" there is every chance she will be in open prison within a couple of weeks and within the month working in the community in some old peoples home somewhere in the UK this is a fact. IMO the sentence was excessive and serves as no detterent because she would not have done the same again because it would be almost impossible to commit the same "crime"

I'm sorry but I feel the only way forward is a zero tolerence policy for all benefit fraudsters. Too large a section of society turns a blind eye to, or even condones this type of crime.

If we crack down on the fraudsters, and give them proper, custodial sentences then the funds released could help those in real need.

I know it probably costs more to keep this woman in prison, than the benefits she stole. That doesn't matter. The more these theives are made an example of, the less likely others are to copy them.

So if you have kids you are allowed to steal 50K?:loopy:
I've children if I enter your property and steal 50K from you, would you still think the same?? Of course you wouldn't, so why it o.k. to steal from the state? No wonder the country is in the state it is?
No one is saying she ought to get away with it,BUT prison for a non violent offence is not the way to go.
It will cost us all a fortune to keep this lady in prison so its not even a cheap option,community service was enough.

I'm sorry but I feel the only way forward is a zero tolerence policy for all benefit fraudsters. Too large a section of society turns a blind eye to, or even condones this type of crime.

If we crack down on the fraudsters, and give them proper, custodial sentences then the funds released could help those in real need.

I know it probably costs more to keep this woman in prison, than the benefits she stole. That doesn't matter. The more these theives are made an example of, the less likely others are to copy them.

I cannot comment on your reply to my post because I would be afraid of going to prison

No one is saying she ought to get away with it,BUT prison for a non violent offence is not the way to go.
It will cost us all a fortune to keep this lady in prison so its not even a cheap option,community service was enough.

I agree with you the sentence was manifestly excessive and even breaches the lord chancellors gudilines on sentencing offenders I have no doubt this will be reduced on appeal

I cannot comment on your reply to my post because I would be afraid of going to prison

Wha makes you think his family are not in need, even more now with mum in prison. Where do you think the kids will end up, possibly fostering care or even worse a childrens home. All because mum was living on a pittance and couldnt afford to pay the rent.

I think the Judge was quite fair in this case.

The mother should have thought of her children before committing the crime.

I'd even go as far as to say that her council house / flat should be re-allocated to someone in genuine need of one, and that when she 'gets out' she shouldn't be entitled to another one.

More of these people need to made examples of. Only by being tough on benefit fraud can we hope to manage the ever increasing demands placed upon our benefits system. There is only so much money in the pot, and theiving scum like this 'lady', in effect, actually take the money from the most needy members of our society.

I'd be glad to contribute an extra 1% in income tax to set up more prisons for these fraudsters.

So whats wrong wih community service ! That way kids stay at home with mum and she gets punnished

I think the punishment fits the crime here and sends the right message to those committing or thinking about committing benefit fraud. In my admittedly biassed eyes, such punishments need to be harsh to deter and prevent others from committing similar frauds.

I have sympathy for the family and others affected by the deliberate actions of the fraudster, but I don't think this is any reason to pass a lesser sentence.

Wha makes you think his family are not in need, even more now with mum in prison. Where do you think the kids will end up, possibly fostering care or even worse a childrens home. All because mum was living on a pittance and couldnt afford to pay the rent.
No, it's not because she couldn't pay the rent (£50K over six years is quite a lot of 'rent' isn't it?), it's because she fraudlently claimed benefits that she wasn't entitled to.

I'm quite happy that some foster family take care of her chldren, perhaps they can set them an example on how to not break the law.

I'm also quite happy for my taxes to pay for the foster families / Childrens homes. I just don't like it when some scumbag steals the tax that most of us pay, when it could be used to help people in REAL need. There are genuine people out there who can't make ends meet; they don't resort to stealing, they prioritise and economise.

If you take ALL the benefit cheats out of the system, then there will be more money for those who are truly in need.

The string should help the weak, they shouldn't have to help the lazy and the theives of this world.

Wha makes you think his family are not in need, even more now with mum in prison. Where do you think the kids will end up, possibly fostering care or even worse a childrens home. All because mum was living on a pittance and couldnt afford to pay the rent.

sorry but what have you used my quote to give this reply if you read my posts I agree with you entirely. was the reply you have given meant for someone else I fully agree the sentence was worng

So whats wrong wih community service ! That way kids stay at home with mum and she gets punnished

Community service is pretty much like ASBO's, ineffective.

She has committed a serious fraud, she has been caught, she has been sentenced. End of. (Apart from the endless appeals, and compensation claims that will no doubt follow this case; costing the taxpayer more money, and lining the pockets of the legal profession)

What kind of example does a 'soft sentence' set to others, what does it say to her children?

It tells them that dishonesty is the best policy, and that even if you get caught, it doesn't matter, because some bleeding heart liberal will come along and make excuses for you, uttering that wonderful phrase ' But what about the Children'.

Maybe it's in the Childrens (and society as a whole) best long term interest to be taken from this woman for a while, and to see how good life could be. Maybe it will give them an incentive to work hard at school and escape from the poverty trap of having to rely on benefits.

Who knows her personal situation,she might have real issues to deal with? I cant beleive how heartless some of you are.

Bet you would be the same if it was your 50k.

It certainly is not in the childrens best interest to be taken away from mum. Research shows children in care are more likely to remain in the poverty trap and subscribe to deviant behaviour. It is in the best interest for children to stay with mum. Look it up on every child matters HM goverment (2006).

It certainly is not in the childrens best interest to be taken away from mum.


Speak for yourself. I wouldn't want my children, or anybody else's children, to be brought up by a criminal. Anyone who had the children's interests at heart wouldn't want that to happen either.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't want my children, or anybody else's children, to be brought up by a criminal. Anyone who had the children's interests at heart wouldn't want that to happen either.

Yeah benefit fraud, she is surely on the road to starting a paedophile ring :rolleyes: idiot.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't want my children, or anybody else's children, to be brought up by a criminal. Anyone who had the children's interests at heart wouldn't want that to happen either.

Well said, she is teaching her children that crime pays, well the children have just had another lesson crime only pays if you don't get caught, and this is what happens if you commit a serious offence, you are punished and you get sent to the place where naughty people go which is called prison.

What happened to the waste of space father of the child, who conveniently vanished as soon as the authorities found out.
The Court must have known he was not only there at weekends, and there all the time or they wouldnt have sentenced her, and if they did know , why isnt he being made to pay something back for living on her single parent ben and being an accomplice to claiming rent money when he was working and living there.

Add my voice to the "almost sufficient" opinion on the sentence.

As others have said, it's not like it was a tuppeny-ha'penny theft, it was £50,000.

It's not like you can say "Oops, silly me, it's an oversight!"

We are talking major money here, and fraud (let's not forget this is a case of massive fraud) over what was a lengthy period.

Lets start a petition to get her stoned to death then maybe some of you will be able to get off your high horses and get a good nights sleep.

which is the worse crime the benefit fraud or this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130495.stm

compare the sentence given, somebody in the judicial system got it wrong but which one

which is the worse crime the benefit fraud or this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130495.stm

compare the sentence given, somebody in the judicial system got it wrong but which one

Yes handing out pamphlets is a hanging offence, totally agree, sorry that should be stoning offence:roll: Actually when the JW hand me a pamphlet and try to convert me I often think they should be stoned to death, funny old world innit?

Cant believe some people on here actually think it will benefit the kids to be taken away from their mum,o.k she was wrong but its a poxy little crime compared to what some parents do
How would you feel if you were taken away from your parents at a young age???

I don't believe that she will spend the full year in jail to. She should have stated that the waste of space was living with her - £50,000 over 3 years too - I've earned just over that much - and that's with 2 jobs!

BTW - some of us who have been brought up in care actually go on to have full-time jobs, don't have dealings with the Policy, don't have criminal records and are certainly not in the poverty trap or subscribe to deviant behaviour. I know that lisalashes stated "more likely" to end up this way - however, we're not all like that. I'm a HUUUUGE disappointment to the care system if that were the case.

Cant believe some people on here actually think it will benefit the kids to be taken away from their mum,o.k she was wrong but its a poxy little crime compared to what some parents do

Having read some of the comments on this (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=281800&highlight=killed) thread nothing surprises me about this forum.

Cant believe some people on here actually think it will benefit the kids to be taken away from their mum,o.k she was wrong but its a poxy little crime compared to what some parents do
How would you feel if you were taken away from your parents at a young age???

I would probably resent the fact that my mother put me in that situation. This woman probably managed fine on benefits until she decided to have a man who was earning live with her. If he wasn't prepared to support her and her children (don't forget they could probably have claimed some benefits) then they are both morally guilty.

She had a choice, she could live on her own with the children and claim what she was entitled to, or find a partner who had a shred of decency and be honest with the DWP. She wasn't a kid, she was an adult, and should have put her children first.

It's going to cost the taxpayer about £8k to keep her in prison for three months. Fostering costs for each of her children will be around £400/week - so another £15k the taxpayer will have to find, and then there's the costs of the prosecution so it's looking like a round figure of £25k to punish this woman and her kids....they're being punished too.

When she comes out she'll more than likely be unemployable so the taxpayer will have to continue supporting her and her children one way or another.

Not entirely sure who's being punished here :confused:

Personally she should have got 18mths at least .She and her tosser of a boyfriend new full well what they where doing and if she hadn't have been found out she would still be doing it. There are a lot of hard working people who work long hours to PROVIDE for their families, unfortunately there are just as many that want to sit on their backsides and do bugger all.

Who knows her personal situation,she might have real issues to deal with? I cant beleive how heartless some of you are.

And I can't believe how 'wishy-washy liberal let her get away with it with a namby pamby community service order' some of you are when it was FIFTY GRAND we are talking about.

how can he allow the kids to wake up on christmas morning wihout mum being there. Wicked judge

The money this woman stole from the Government could have been used to buy anti-cancer drugs on the NHS or it could have been spent buying better equipment for the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. In both cases kids could be waking up on every xmas day without a Mother or Father from now on because their parent has died because the money that could have saved them had been diverted to this woman.

The money this woman stole from the Government could have been used to buy anti-cancer drugs on the NHS or it could have been spent buying better equipment for the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. In both cases kids could be waking up on every xmas day without a Mother or Father from now on because their parent has died because the money that could have saved them had been diverted to this woman.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
YAWN

The money this woman stole from the Government could have been used to buy anti-cancer drugs on the NHS or it could have been spent buying better equipment for the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. In both cases kids could be waking up on every xmas day without a Mother or Father from now on because their parent has died because the money that could have saved them had been diverted to this woman.

I dont think you have a valid argument the £50000 would still be there budgets are set months in advance and if you compare the amount with the budget it will be negligible

I dont think you have a valid argument the £50000 would still be there budgets are set months in advance and if you compare the amount with the budget it will be negligible

Sorry I don't usually use the "oh god won't someone think of the children" argument but in this case I needed to pitch it at Lisalashes level.

Maybe she didn't "hurt anyone" so to speak, but I bet she pi**ed off a lot of taxpayers.

So she can continue to just that in Prison then at the tax payers expense.......at least if she was dished community service the tax payer would not have to continue paying there hard earned dosh on her while in the nick.

No, it's not because she couldn't pay the rent (£50K over six years is quite a lot of 'rent' isn't it?), it's because she fraudlently claimed benefits that she wasn't entitled to.

I'm quite happy that some foster family take care of her chldren, perhaps they can set them an example on how to not break the law.

I'm also quite happy for my taxes to pay for the foster families / Childrens homes. I just don't like it when some scumbag steals the tax that most of us pay, when it could be used to help people in REAL need. There are genuine people out there who can't make ends meet; they don't resort to stealing, they prioritise and economise.

If you take ALL the benefit cheats out of the system, then there will be more money for those who are truly in need.

The string should help the weak, they shouldn't have to help the lazy and the theives of this world.

Totally agree with you.

She got what she deserved and its not like the court did not know her family situation.

I mean I cant believe some people are saying things like she should of got community service.

As if that will teach her a lesson or even set much of an example to the kids.

It certainly is not in the childrens best interest to be taken away from mum. Research shows children in care are more likely to remain in the poverty trap and subscribe to deviant behaviour. It is in the best interest for children to stay with mum. Look it up on every child matters HM goverment (2006).

So they will probably learn from MOM, you can steal money in excess of 50k and get away with it .Must try that one !!!!

I dont think you have a valid argument the £50000 would still be there budgets are set months in advance and if you compare the amount with the budget it will be negligible

I think 8751 has a perfectly valid argument. Fifty thousand pounds has gone, and cannot now be spent on something good.

If this woman were allowed a soft non-custodial sentence, it would be a green light to every other dishonest rat to steal tax-payers' money. It will probably cost us a lot more than £50k to look after the children and keep her in prison, but it will prove cost-effective in the long run, probably to the tune of billions of pounds.

I can recommend a good maths teacher ricky36, who may be able to help you understand the principle of subtraction. :hihi:

I wonder why they didn't prosecute the boyfriend. He was complicit in the fraud even if he didn't actually sign the forms. Also if he's father of one her brats why don't the child support agency chase him up?
If he's made no financial contribution to the household running costs then he's the one who's benefited from the arrangement. She's actually been worse off as she's had to support him out of her benefits.
When she comes out she'll still be eligible for benefits.
The welfare state seems powerless against people with no assets and who don't want to work.

Hi All

These poor kids shouldn have to suffer because of a crime mum did. Mum mus have been desperate. the judge who dealt with this case in court is the real baddy. how can he allow the kids to wake up on christmas morning wihout mum being there. Wicked judge

What makes you think she must have been desperate? Some people are just greedy. Don't blame it on the judge - he didn't make her a thief, she did that all by herself. If her kids wake up on christmas morning without her then she's the wicked one for letting them down.

I am torn on this one. I agree that it serves no purpose leaving children without a mother but at the end of the day this was long term fraud. A very large amount of money was involved. I don't believe that she was struggling for money to such an extent that she had to do this. Her partner must have contributed if he was living there.

I know that its a struggle on benefits but if this woman received £50,000 & had her partners income (I don't beleive for 1 minute he didn't contribute anything) she will have been living very comfortably. She was commiting a crime over a long period of time so must have had an idea of what the consequences were yet she still chose to do it. She didn't just tell a few fibs she must have consistently supplied false information to get away with it for so long.

When she comes out she'll still be eligible for benefits.
The welfare state seems powerless against people with no assets and who don't want to work.

Pointed all this out earlier ^^^^. Nobody seems able to see this woman is a victim of the system - why has it taken six years to catch up with her ?

Wouldn't be because the dumbos down in Westminster are too busy with their own little frauds to pay any attention to what's going on under their greedy snouts ?

Someone here has already described her as a 'scumbag' and her children as 'brats', - look elswhere for the real scumbags.

I do not think she should be in prison, people do a lot worse crimes and don’t end up there. She has gone from being kept by the taxpayer on benefits, to being kept by the taxpayer in prison. What she did was stupid, but people who have been on benefits for a number of year, get scared of what would happen if the payments stopped. Some people still don’t realise that if they work or have a partner who works they may still get housing/council tax benefit and tax credits to top up poor wages.

Maybe what is needed is a complete overhaul, Limit benefits to a set period, and have more help to find work, such as someone on jobseekers has to take any job available after receiving benefits for a year. Lone parents working once children reach school age, and most disabled people I know personally, would love some sort of work to suit ability, and if no work is available to fit any of these, maybe receive benefits and do voluntary work.

People who have received benefits for a few years or more, seem to lose confidence in themselves and what they can do and what they can offer, as I did when I decided not to work and bring up my children. My husband did work so we did not claim benefits, but after not working for a number of years, I did not feel I had anything to offer to the workforce. Luckily I was proven wrong and I have been in full time employment for 3 years, this was with the help of my local jobcentre, who took timeout to encourage me to volunteer which led to a permanent position.

I wonder why they didn't prosecute the boyfriend. He was complicit in the fraud even if he didn't actually sign the forms. Also if he's father of one her brats why don't the child support agency chase him up?
If he's made no financial contribution to the household running costs then he's the one who's benefited from the arrangement. She's actually been worse off as she's had to support him out of her benefits.

This is what i said earlier [QUOTE=tara;2907313]What happened to the waste of space father of the child, who conveniently vanished as soon as the authorities found out.
The Court must have known he was not only there at weekends, and there all the time or they wouldnt have sentenced her, and if they did know , why isnt he being made to pay something back for living on her single parent ben and being an accomplice to claiming rent money when he was working and living there.

Luybell, you dont really think the boyfriend contributed do you.
There are loads of men like this who live off women, and its been suggested he was violent and wouldn't go, so what can we deduce from that.
And as already stated, he must have been living there full time or she wouldn't have got in to trouble otherwise.
Its so easy to think that because he was working, then she must have been coining it in, but i bet he never gave her a penny and lived off her, and she couldnt make ends meet
so carried on claiming benefits. If he wasn't there at all then this wouldn't have happened.
The best thing she should have done was to get a solicitors letter to get him out of her house in the first place.
Then there would be no need to claim money fraudulently.

I was thinking about this last night after I posted. I really don't think she should have been sent to prison but then I don't know what punishment she should have been given.

With regards to her circumstances it is hard to know. I do think her solicitor will have tried to make her look as innocent as possible so its hard to know if she was the victim of a violent, manipulative boyfriend or if they were just greedy & deliberately coining it in? I am sure there are people in both situations. I know there are people who live in fear of their partner but there are eually people who deliberately continue claiming through pure greed. Either way I agree he is as guilty as her & should be punished equally.

On another note I was speaking to one of the other mums at school who told me that she still claims tax credits as a single parent. She was actualy bragging about it. Her partner lives with her & is the father of her youngest child but does't give her any money as the eldest two aren't his. (Domestic violence is not an issue here just pure greed & the thought that the world owes them) Sorry - what a crock. he works full time, as if he has all his wage to himself while she pays everything. If you make the commitment to move in with someone who already has children then you commit to their family too. Why should the taxpayer continue to pay for them so they can boost their income? I gave up my tax credits when I moved in with my partner, as it should be. I sound like Alf Garnett now but it does annoy me that people live in total poverty on benefits while others just deliberately bleed the system dry.

I agree there needs to be a total overhaul of the benefits system.

I'm in 2 minds about this because I believe our prisons are too full already and I'm not sure being in prison will teach her not to reoffend, probably teach her a few more skills but she has to be punished as this was no women stealing a couple of quid to buy bread. If she had broken into some old persons house and stolen 50 thousand from him/her the lynch party would be out. Because of people like her other legitimate claimants are put through the mill when they want to claim. I have a niece who is partially sighted, had a stroke, has severe asthma and arthritis but is still struggling to get the help she needs. I receive benefit as I'm disabled. I'm a legitimate claimant but I feel like dirt every time I'm called up for interview. I was even signed as fit by the DHSS till my GP and Consultant complained. The same week a guy with a severe heart complaint was forced back to work and died within an hour of starting work. It's people like her that make life hell for the rest of us. We're all tarred with the same brush as scroungers.

[QUOTE=SimpyTimpy;2906619]It's a shame to see a good person go down for such a pointless crime

So if she was an old ugly Asian, that would make a difference then?:suspect::roll:]

Finally justice served, this should be happening way more often benifit fraud should carry an automatic prison sentance, this would stop all these low life scummers nicking money from people who work hard, or benifits from people who need them.

Pointed all this out earlier ^^^^. Nobody seems able to see this woman is a victim of the system - why has it taken six years to catch up with her ?

Wouldn't be because the dumbos down in Westminster are too busy with their own little frauds to pay any attention to what's going on under their greedy snouts ?

No. It's because she didn't declare that her boyfriend was living with her. Only when he put her address as being his own too, did anything come to light.

As I have said time and time again, without information, nothing can be done, unless you want 'Big Brother' watching everyone. But hang on, that would require a hugely increased number of 'greedy snouted Civil Servants', wouldn't it?

Get that chip off your shoulder.

She was investigated when the fraud came to light, prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. I have no sympathy for her at all. Unfortunately, he can't be prosecuted as the onus of responsibility lies fully with her. All he needs to say is that he was unaware that she was still claiming.

Just as an aside though, a sizeable proportion of the fraud is in 'indirect benefits'. That is to say she wouldn't have actually had the cash in her hand. If, as has been alleged, her boyfriend really didn't contribute anything, then the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit would have been keeping a roof over her and her kids' heads.

Of course it was still fraud, and the irony is that they still may have been eligible for help had the income been correctly declared, but people seem to think that she actually had £50k and spent it, when the reality is going to be somewhat different.

No. It's because she didn't declare that her boyfriend was living with her. Only when he put her address as being his own too, did anything come to light.

As I have said time and time again, without information, nothing can be done, unless you want 'Big Brother' watching everyone. But hang on, that would require a hugely increased number of 'greedy snouted Civil Servants', wouldn't it?

Get that chip off your shoulder.

She was investigated when the fraud came to light, prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. I have no sympathy for her at all. Unfortunately, he can't be prosecuted as the onus of responsibility lies fully with her. All he needs to say is that he was unaware that she was still claiming.

Just as an aside though, a sizeable proportion of the fraud is in 'indirect benefits'. That is to say she wouldn't have actually had the cash in her hand. If, as has been alleged, her boyfriend really didn't contribute anything, then the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit would have been keeping a roof over her and her kids' heads.

Of course it was still fraud, and the irony is that they still may have been eligible for help had the income been correctly declared, but people seem to think that she actually had £50k and spent it, when the reality is going to be somewhat different.


so lets get this right what you are saying she and her boyfriend may have been able to get benefits if she had declared that he was living there so the actual figure could have been considerably less than the amount stated. And would I be right in assuming that taking into account all the circumstance of the family they would have maybe been entitled to the benefits anyway. Then this woman as gone to jail basically just for failing to declare her boyfriend lived with her. If this is the case then in actual fact no money may have been obtained dishonestly. without any long drawn out explanation is the statement above true or false?

so lets get this right what you are saying she and her boyfriend may have been able to get benefits if she had declared that he was living there so the actual figure could have been considerably less than the amount stated. And would I be right in assuming that taking into account all the circumstance of the family they would have maybe been entitled to the benefits anyway. Then this woman as gone to jail basically just for failing to declare her boyfriend lived with her. If this is the case then in actual fact no money may have been obtained dishonestly. without any long drawn out explanation is the statement above true or false?
I think what happyhippy is saying, is that had she declared her partner was living with her, she may have been entitled to some benefits, no where near the £50K though, dependant upon their joint income.

It is possible that she knew this though, and decided that the declaration would significantly reduce the benefits she could recieve.

Dont you just love this site. Its a great way to let off steam. I love a good argy bargy.

so lets get this right what you are saying she and her boyfriend may have been able to get benefits if she had declared that he was living there so the actual figure could have been considerably less than the amount stated. And would I be right in assuming that taking into account all the circumstance of the family they would have maybe been entitled to the benefits anyway. Then this woman as gone to jail basically just for failing to declare her boyfriend lived with her. If this is the case then in actual fact no money may have been obtained dishonestly. without any long drawn out explanation is the statement above true or false?

False.

It's entirely possible that they could have received Tax Credits, and/or some help with housing, but as convert states, the entitlement would have been considerably less in terms of the benefits in question.

Without knowing his earnings, it's impossible to say what help they could have had.

She's gone to jail because she continued to claim benefits as if she were single, when in fact she wasn't. This is what gave rise to the considerable overpayment.

I know you can’t believe everything you read in the Star, but let’s have a look at the report.

It says she got £50,000 – over 6 years. This is about £8000 a year, which is not very much to live off and support five children (3 of hers and 2 of her deceased sister’s).

It says the man “forced his way in”, only came at weekends, was alleged to have been violent and gave her no money. The authorities by now ought to be aware of the issues around domestic abuse. Was it in the best interests of her children to stop the only reliable source of income for them?

The man gave the address as a correspondence address – this is not the same as saying that he lived there.

It doesn’t say she was represented in court or had had advice on the criminal charge or the benefits entitlement.

It does say the man moved out - for those of you who know the legal conditions relating to living together as husband and wife, you will realise that essential elements appear to be missing. She may therefore have been entitled to those benefits.

The real difficulty with the issue of claiming benefits and living with someone is that relationships are never black and white. At what point in time does a relationship change from boyfriend-girlfriend at a distance to “living together as a couple”. I’m sure some of the people who have commented so far must have had a relationship at some time their lives.

Pause ….

I know you can’t believe everything you read in the Star, but let’s have a look at the report.

It says she got £50,000 – over 6 years. This is about £8000 a year, which is not very much to live off and support five children (3 of hers and 2 of her deceased sister’s).

Which is about right (a bit short maybe) for IS/HB/CTB levels, especially as she was in Council accommodation. In any case, it certainly doesn't excuse fraudulent behaviour.

It says the man “forced his way in”, only came at weekends, was alleged to have been violent and gave her no money. The authorities by now ought to be aware of the issues around domestic abuse. Was it in the best interests of her children to stop the only reliable source of income for them?

A very, very important word there. I would also hazard the wildest of guesses that that was the defence's argument, and was superseded by the prosecution's evidence.

The man gave the address as a correspondence address – this is not the same as saying that he lived there.

The 35-year-old continued to claim income support, housing and council tax benefit as a single parent until 2006 when checks by the Inland Revenue revealed her partner had given her address as his own to employers.

Nothing about it being a correspondence address there, simply that it was his address.

It doesn’t say she was represented in court or had had advice on the criminal charge or the benefits entitlement.

As it was Crown Court, I would very much doubt that she didn't have representation, or at least some legal advice.

It does say the man moved out - for those of you who know the legal conditions relating to living together as husband and wife, you will realise that essential elements appear to be missing. She may therefore have been entitled to those benefits.

Cobblers. The man moved out when she was first contacted by fraud (when it came to light). They will have been under surveillance for some time, or there wouldn't be a snowball's chance that a LTAHAW (Living Together As Husband And Wife) allegation could be brought forward for prosecution. Had he only been there at weekends, then this would have been borne out in the surveillance, and no charges subsequently brought.

The real difficulty with the issue of claiming benefits and living with someone is that relationships are never black and white. At what point in time does a relationship change from boyfriend-girlfriend at a distance to “living together as a couple”. I’m sure some of the people who have commented so far must have had a relationship at some time their lives.

They certainly are black and white in the eyes of the law, and DWP guidance.

Get that chip off your shoulder.




Listen son....if I want a chip on my shoulder I'll have one thank you. :)

And where did I refer to 'greedy snouted Civil Servants' ? The trough gobblers I'm referring to operate out of the Palace of Westminster - not Whitehall. You seem a little over-sensitive about people's opinions of civil servants, but for me it's always been the case that politicians make the mess and civil servants have to clear it up.

The point about this particular mess, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, is that this woman is going to continue costing the taxpayer, and if the children involved are taken into care considerably more than the £8k/year it was costing us. And that's besides the £25k it's cost to make an example of her.

There is probably some irony in there...but it's too deep for me.

Listen son....if I want a chip on my shoulder I'll have one thank you. :)

<fx: waves the missus' handbag back at Greybeard :D>

And where did I refer to 'greedy snouted Civil Servants' ? The trough gobblers I'm referring to operate out of the Palace of Westminster - not Whitehall. You seem a little over-sensitive about people's opinions of civil servants, but for me it's always been the case that politicians make the mess and civil servants have to clear it up.

Well our Dishonourable Members can't do much about fraud directly can they? Your last point's pretty much spot on though.

The point about this particular mess, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, is that this woman is going to continue costing the taxpayer, and if the children involved are taken into care considerably more than the £8k/year it was costing us. And that's besides the £25k it's cost to make an example of her.

There is probably some irony in there...but it's too deep for me.

It might just send a message out though. I do rather like the fact that I can choose as and when I go out of the front door; something which she can't do at the moment.

The judge who gave this woman the sentence doesnt seem to realise the over crowding we have in the prison population,he ought to be ashamed of himself for his actions.:mad:

The judge who gave this woman the sentence doesnt seem to realise the over crowding we have in the prison population,he ought to be ashamed of himself for his actions.:mad:

And what the hell was the judge supposed to do otherwise? Do nothing in particular because it's just a benefit case?

I'm more sympathetic than most to people who have been on benefits, but when someone takes the right royal, something needs to be done.

It's utterly clear that fraud has happened, and in my opinion the correct outcome has occurred.

but maybe if the govment paid her more money she would not hav had to frud them

but maybe if the govment paid her more money she would not hav had to frud them

Maybe the unemployed should go on strike for a better pay deal then .!!!!!

but maybe if the govment paid her more money she would not hav had to frud them I have only one reply to that: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

the situation was that she was living with a guy who was working, so as well as screwing him she was screwing the social as well.
She did not need a thing as he was supporting her and the kids so there is no excuse for what happened, the outcome was more than fitting and as the saying goes if you cant do the time dont do the crime!!!

the situation was that she was living with a guy who was working, so as well as screwing him she was screwing the social as well.
She did not need a thing as he was supporting her and the kids so there is no excuse for what happened, the outcome was more than fitting and as the saying goes if you cant do the time dont do the crime!!!

didnt she say the guy never contributed to the house hold.???

She also said she was entitled to the benefits she claimed - I think its safe to say anything she said could be misleading.

The judge who gave this woman the sentence doesnt seem to realise the over crowding we have in the prison population,he ought to be ashamed of himself for his actions.:mad:

Over crowding is hardly a reason to not punish people. If this person has committed fraud then she should be punished; irrespective of personal circumstances. She's a thief, plain and simple. We should be tough on people like this - it's our taxes they're stealing. Scum.

Flamin hell .. Tis people like her who make me so, so angry !! I'd like to meet her face to face.

the situation was that she was living with a guy who was working, so as well as screwing him she was screwing the social as well.
She did not need a thing as he was supporting her and the kids so there is no excuse for what happened, the outcome was more than fitting and as the saying goes if you cant do the time dont do the crime!!!

Did the prosecution produce an proof that this man was supporting her in any way ? There is no more than an assumption of that - there never can be. Lots of men take all and give nowt.

Her guilt was that she didn't declare that he was living with her. It's entirley possible that he was a bullying free-loader and in that situation he had anyway no legal obligation to support her or the kids. But for some reason the benefits people assume that he would be supporting them, or paying her some money as a 'lodger'.

The theory is often quite different to the practice.

That's debatable. I would say that taking them away from a criminal and giving them to an honest family for fostering/adoption, is actually benefiting them, rather than punishing them.

Well I think if you asked her children they would disagree. I hope she doesn't get a custodial sentence. I think people who commit violent crimes should be in prison -not people who commit financial crimes. But it seems violent crimes get a slap on the wrist while financial criminals get banged up.

Did the prosecution produce an proof that this man was supporting her in any way ? There is no more than an assumption of that - there never can be. Lots of men take all and give nowt.

Her guilt was that she didn't declare that he was living with her. It's entirley possible that he was a bullying free-loader and in that situation he had anyway no legal obligation to support her or the kids. But for some reason the benefits people assume that he would be supporting them, or paying her some money as a 'lodger'.

The theory is often quite different to the practice.

Not over six years, Greybeard. This wouldn't be a 'grab a couple of quid' moment. Indeed, had he said he was paying money as a 'lodger', that would need to be declared, so there would still be a fraud.

You're a reasonable person, do you think that situation would continue over SIX YEARS without her knowing anything, or for nothing to happen within their relationship? I must say though, as others have, it is unfortunate that nothing can happen to him, legally.

Not over six years, Greybeard. This wouldn't be a 'grab a couple of quid' moment. Indeed, had he said he was paying money as a 'lodger', that would need to be declared, so there would still be a fraud.

You're a reasonable person, do you think that situation would continue over SIX YEARS without her knowing anything, or for nothing to happen within their relationship? I must say though, as others have, it is unfortunate that nothing can happen to him, legally.

it is a crime that they could not prosecute him. for all we know he may have been the instigator. he should have been interviewed as well to find out how much he really knew I KNOW ITS NOT POSSIBLE but you get the idea

I don't believe that she will spend the full year in jail to. She should have stated that the waste of space was living with her - £50,000 over 3 years too - I've earned just over that much - and that's with 2 jobs!

BTW - some of us who have been brought up in care actually go on to have full-time jobs, don't have dealings with the Policy, don't have criminal records and are certainly not in the poverty trap or subscribe to deviant behaviour. I know that lisalashes stated "more likely" to end up this way - however, we're not all like that. I'm a HUUUUGE disappointment to the care system if that were the case.

That's why I stated more likely which certainly does not mean all children in care become trapped in poverty. :)

That's why I stated more likely which certainly does not mean all children in care become trapped in poverty. :)

every chance she will out in three months believe it or albeit on tag

it is a crime that they could not prosecute him. for all we know he may have been the instigator. he should have been interviewed as well to find out how much he really knew I KNOW ITS NOT POSSIBLE but you get the idea

I fully understand you Ricky.

I fully understand you Ricky.

Could have made a very good conspiracy charge out of that if they had been able to interview both just a thought

Could have made a very good conspiracy charge out of that if they had been able to interview both just a thought

Not at all. The worker couldn't have been interviewed unless by the Police anyway.

There are plenty of people that are not deserving of tax payers money. I don't think she deserves prison and I definately don't think her kids are better off without her. It must be one of the worst things in the world for a child to be separated from their parents. I think community service or making her pay it back would suffice.

There are plenty of people that are not deserving of tax payers money. I don't think she deserves prison and I definately don't think her kids are better off without her. It must be one of the worst things in the world for a child to be separated from their parents. I think community service or making her pay it back would suffice.

that is apoint I made earlier she will in fact have to pay every penny back the DWP WILL DEDUCT it from any future benefit she will recieve when she comes out of jail so in fact in the long run she wont have made a penny.
HAPPY HIPPY can confirm this fact I am sure. every penny will be paid back over the years

That's debatable. I would say that taking them away from a criminal and giving them to an honest family for fostering/adoption, is actually benefiting them, rather than punishing them.

where do you get this crap from?