Benefit thief - Should I report them?

[happyhippy 11]

they have no legal obligation, yet i would argue that there is a strong social obligation. Once it can be seen that the person is relatively fit for work, they should not simply then 'take advantage' of the system, they should be actively seeking to remove thier unnecassary burden on the welfare state. It is 'morally unfair', especially when said person regularly complains about not being able to find work.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/johnson-tackles-sick-note-culture-784505.html

 

You need to distinguish between what is fraudulent in a legal sense, and fraudulent within a social one. Collectively, by default, we are all entered into a huge social contract.

 

When it is suspected that some people are taking advantage of aspects of the system, and after a certain amount of time it becomes evident that they are, are you being responsible, or complicit, if you choose to ignore it?

 

Total rubbish. Fraud simply relies on legality, not any social mores. Unless there is a change in the law, it's simply none of your business.

[johnbradley 10]

actually - 'fraud' is synonymous with 'deceit' - deceptive or misleading behaviour, neither of which are necassarily conditional on legality. In other words, even if the actions are not strictly 'illegal', they can still be obviously 'incorrect'.

 

If thats tricky for you to understand then thats not my problem, although i suspect you do, and are motivated by other, less impartial reasons. Could probably tease an irony out of that somewhere...

 

And yes, it is my business. It is ALL of ours. I chip into the pot for this, i'd like to see the money spent on people who need help, not just those who choose not to work. And what has definately been established, on this forum, is that it is just that: a choice, not an incapacity.

[Darbees 10]

This was in last weeks paper, this is how benefits cheats are dealt with and it has taken 3 years to get it to court. The 39 year old woman is paying back £26,000 at £50 a week which will take more than 43 years i.e until she is 82 even if there is no interest on it. She has got 100 hrs community service which is the equivalent of two and half weeks work and has been effectively been paid £260 an hour, tax free for that work. If that's how people are deterred from fiddling benefits it seems like a pretty good arrangement to me. It's pathetic.

[Lotusflower 10]

actually - 'fraud' is synonymous with 'deceit' - deceptive or misleading behaviour, neither of which are necassarily conditional on legality. In other words, even if the actions are not strictly 'illegal', they can still be obviously 'incorrect'.

 

If thats tricky for you to understand then thats not my problem, although i suspect you do, and are motivated by other, less impartial reasons. Could probably tease an irony out of that somewhere...

 

And yes, it is my business. It is ALL of ours. I chip into the pot for this, i'd like to see the money spent on people who need help, not just those who choose not to work. And what has definately been established, on this forum, is that it is just that: a choice, not an incapacity.

 

With respect NOTHING has been ESTABLISHED. You have reached a conclusion that is all. And you are entitled to do that!

 

I do have to bite my tongue though when I savour the "flavour" of your argument. I can tell you that you are indeed being used JB. And also that the degree to which you believe benefit cheats so sully your life is the degree to which you have been, and continue to be, led up the garden path.

There's a much bigger picture here than you have shown me you're aware of.

[pk014b7161 11]

want to sort out cheats look in the house of commons etc

[happyhippy 11]

actually - 'fraud' is synonymous with 'deceit' - deceptive or misleading behaviour, neither of which are necassarily conditional on legality. In other words, even if the actions are not strictly 'illegal', they can still be obviously 'incorrect'.

 

Incorrect. Fraud is a specific legal term which includes theft within its description. Deceit is something else entirely. Fraud can only be addressed by Jobcentre Plus if an illegal activity has taken place. No such activity has taken place.

 

If thats tricky for you to understand then thats not my problem, although i suspect you do, and are motivated by other, less impartial reasons. Could probably tease an irony out of that somewhere...

 

If you find my paragraph above tricky to understand, then that's not my problem either, but the simple facts are that I'm right and you aren't. Given that nearly all of my professional life has been taken up with dealing with these kinds of issues, I think you'll see no irony, but a clear knowledge of the law, rather than your thinly veiled attack on another forummer.

 

And yes, it is my business. It is ALL of ours. I chip into the pot for this, i'd like to see the money spent on people who need help, not just those who choose not to work. And what has definately been established, on this forum, is that it is just that: a choice, not an incapacity.

 

No, it's not your business. You do not have the right or authority to decide how others lead their lives. I'd also rather trust the opinion of a qualified medic about someone's ability to work or not over your judgement based on what you see on a screen.

 

Were this person having to look for work as part of the contract which s/he'd have to sign every fortnight, and s/he weren't looking for work, then there are ways and means of ensuring that s/he did look for work. Moreover, you could submit evidence to start the ball rolling.

 

As it is, this person doesn't legally have to look for work, is doing nothing illegal, and it's none of your business how this person leads his/her life.

[happyhippy 11]

This was in last weeks paper, this is how benefits cheats are dealt with and it has taken 3 years to get it to court. The 39 year old woman is paying back £26,000 at £50 a week which will take more than 43 years i.e until she is 82 even if there is no interest on it. She has got 100 hrs community service which is the equivalent of two and half weeks work and has been effectively been paid £260 an hour, tax free for that work. If that's how people are deterred from fiddling benefits it seems like a pretty good arrangement to me. It's pathetic.

 

A few things.

 

The reason why the repayments are set at such a low level will be down to the fact that she is no longer working. She also has a criminal conviction for dishonesty, which is hardly going to help her in finding work either.

 

She also has sole responsibility of a minor. I'm not defending her, far from it, but there is a wider picture. Would you rather that the state paid even more to keep her behind bars and her son in a care home? We are talking about a financial issue here, after all.

 

I don't know what the correct course of action was, or even if it is the one chosen by the judge, but each case has to be judged on its own merits.

[Darbees 10]

A few things.

 

The reason why the repayments are set at such a low level will be down to the fact that she is no longer working. She also has a criminal conviction for dishonesty, which is hardly going to help her in finding work either.

 

She also has sole responsibility of a minor. I'm not defending her, far from it, but there is a wider picture. Would you rather that the state paid even more to keep her behind bars and her son in a care home? We are talking about a financial issue here, after all.

 

I don't know what the correct course of action was, or even if it is the one chosen by the judge, but each case has to be judged on its own merits.

One of the reasons for taking her to court as well as to punish her is to create a deterrant to prevent others commiting similar crimes. This case is no deterrant to anyone, it is not a punishment in any shape or form. Having a criminal record is no big deal to many people. As an employer I know that I cannot access peoples criminal records without their consent and even then I would have to justify it and if I can't I am discriminating if I don't employ them for that reason.

[happyhippy 11]

One of the reasons for taking her to court as well as to punish her is to create a deterrant to prevent others commiting similar crimes. This case is no deterrant to anyone, it is not a punishment in any shape or form. Having a criminal record is no big deal to many people. As an employer I know that I cannot access peoples criminal records without their consent and even then I would have to justify it and if I can't I am discriminating if I don't employ them for that reason.

 

True, but often on application forms the question is asked about criminal records, or the lack of. It may not be a big deal to many employers, but by the same token, to many others, including large organisations where the chance of work is easier to come by, it still is.

 

As I said, I don't know what the correct course of action should have been.

[Darbees 10]

True, but often on application forms the question is asked about criminal records, or the lack of. It may not be a big deal to many employers, but by the same token, to many others, including large organisations where the chance of work is easier to come by, it still is.

 

As I said, I don't know what the correct course of action should have been.

I don't think the course of action should be based on financial considerations, i.e. she would cost us even more if she were locked up, ironic though that is. Benefit fraud is widespread and it needs a few harsh sentences to get the message across as it is quite clear that various advertising campaigns threatening harsh punishments are not correct.

[happyhippy 11]

I don't think the course of action should be based on financial considerations, i.e. she would cost us even more if she were locked up, ironic though that is. Benefit fraud is widespread and it needs a few harsh sentences to get the message across as it is quite clear that various advertising campaigns threatening harsh punishments are not correct.

 

I'm inclined to agree, but in this case there were other aspects to take into consideration.

[Darbees 10]

I'm inclined to agree, but in this case there were other aspects to take into consideration.

Yes and those aspects meant that she went virtually unpunished, something is surely wrong there.