Welfare &c.

[french frank]

OK Boss

There are, obviously, NO ethics involved in some attitudes to welfare

The people I have met who are most outraged by benefit fraud are those with severe disabilities and their parents, the conflation affects them more than anyone else.

The OP was phrased in terms of generalities. The welfare system itself may well have a strong ethical (or unethical) dimension, but the discussion had developed into one on current affairs, and opinions about current policy. I wouldn't expect a general philosophical debate to end with the usual battle lines drawn. Hence this stays on Platform 3.

[Resurrection Man]

..... official figures, .......

Ah...the elusive figures. Still waiting for that link.

[JFLL]

If any of that's "pompous and labyrinthine", there's no point in discussing it with you or in your contributing your thoughts to such a debate.

Ah, here we go again. There’s no point in people who disagree with you contributing to a debate which you have honoured by your presence and graced with your wisdom. As though debates here would be all sweetness and light if only people would not be so pig-headed as to disagree with you. In another thread recently, you told me:

Wishing that you'd never asked might now be something on which we can find agreement...

In another, you said:

… you weren't being asked, actually.

Do you really not understand how pompous this sort of thing is?

[ahinton]

Ah, here we go again.

Do we really, now?

There’s no point in people who disagree with you contributing to a debate which you have honoured by your presence and graced with your wisdom.

Now that does sound pompous, but they're your words, not mine. I make no claim either to have "honoured" this debate by my contributions to it nor "graced" it with "wisdom" any more than has anyone else.

As though debates here would be all sweetness and light if only people would not be so pig-headed as to disagree with you.

Never having accused anyone here of "pig-headedness" whether or not they might disagree with me, your "sweetness and light" argument seems to hold less water than you appear to believe that it does.

In another thread recently, you told me:
Wishing that you'd never asked might now be something on which we can find agreement...

What is inherently wrong with that?

In another, you said:
… you weren't being asked, actually.

and, unless you were specifically being asked whatever it was at the time (I can't be bothered to go and look up the specific context right now) - and, if so, I offer you my sincere and unreserved apology - I repeat my question above; what is inherently wrong with that?

Do you really not understand how pompous this sort of thing is?

Since it isn't, the question does not apply - and there's certainly nothing inherently and obviously "pompous" about offering sincere and unreserved apologies if appropriate, as far as I am aware.

[ahinton]

Ah...the elusive figures. Still waiting for that link.

I've given you sources but you appear to expect me to do all your homework for you. Never mind; let's for the time being try this from a different perspective. You tell us firstly what proportion of the total amount of benefits paid out are paid out to cheats and fraudsters and what proportion of the total number of benefit recipients are cheats and fraudsters and then secondly what proportion of the total tax revenue is lost to tax evaders and what proportion of the total number of taxpayers are tax evaders; in the first instance, I won't even ask you to justify the figures that you produce by citing official sources, because I'm simply interested in the first instance in what you personally think is the true position on such matters.

There can - or at least should - be no doubt that you and I and JFLL (I'm not so sure about Mandryka) not only do not endorse benefit fraud or tax evasion but also believe that both should be appropriately punished in each case when possible; nor should there be doubt that we all agree that those who do break the law by obtaining state benefits fraudulently and evading tax disadvantage honest benefit claimants and taxpayers by so doing. Given, therefore, that the extent of disagreement between us in such matters appears to be considerably less than JFLL - and possibly also you (once again, I cannot be sure about Mandryka) - seem to assume, it's hard to see what your problem might be in coming forward with those figures that you personally happen to believe apply in these matters.

[Resurrection Man]

I've given you sources....

You made the claim. You back it up.

[ahinton]

You made the claim. You back it up.

Would you not agree that those who make certain accusations against benefit fraudsters and tax evaders ought to back theirs up with corroborative statistics?

Anyway, just for starters, to whet (or not) your appetite), try this, which will at least direct you to a relevant official source; it may not quite be current but, unless you believe that the bulk of the benefit fraud market has arisen since their publication, it ought to tell you and others something.

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/dlafraudjuly05.pdf

Or have a peep at

http://www.tuc.org.uk/social/tuc-21796-f0.cfm

Or indeed

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_apr10_mar11.pdf

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/26/new-figures-show-low-level-of-benefit-fraud/

Some of this is opinion, some an account of how opinions compare with facts and the rest facts. It's far from comprehensive, but if you don't derive from any of it that benefit "scroungers" - by which only cheats and fraudsters (i.e. those who ensure that they're in receipt of more state benefit than is their entitlement if any) represent a small minority of benefit recipients as a whole or that the monies lost as a consequence of such fraud represent a small proportion of benefit payments in their entirety or that there are official sources both for such statistics, such opinions and the sometimes wide divergences between the two, there's not a whole lot that I or anyone else can do to help you, really...

[JFLL]

As though debates here would be all sweetness and light if only people would not be so pig-headed as to disagree with you.

Never having accused anyone here of "pig-headedness" whether or not they might disagree with me, your "sweetness and light" argument seems to hold less water than you appear to believe that it does.

Of course you haven't actually called anyone 'pig-headed' -- you have just written as though they were.

In another thread recently, you told me:
Wishing that you'd never asked might now be something on which we can find agreement...

What is inherently wrong with that?

You can’t see what’s wrong with implying that I should never have raised the question? Why on earth shouldn’t I?

In another, you said:
… you weren't being asked, actually.

and, unless you were specifically being asked whatever it was at the time (I can't be bothered to go and look up the specific context right now) - and, if so, I offer you my sincere and unreserved apology - I repeat my question above; what is inherently wrong with that?

What’s wrong is the implication that anyone should have to be asked (by you?) before they dare give an opinion.

Do you really not understand how pompous this sort of thing is?

Since it isn't, the question does not apply - and there's certainly nothing inherently and obviously "pompous" about offering sincere and unreserved apologies if appropriate, as far as I am aware.

No-one called your offer of apologies ‘pompous’, since you’ve only just made it. But it’s not really an apology, is it, because you still think your statement was justified ‘[if I wasn’t] specifically being asked’? Again, why should anyone have to be ‘specifically asked’? Perhaps ‘pompous’ was the wrong word – maybe it should have been ‘arrogant’.

[ahinton]

Of course you haven't actually called anyone 'pig-headed' -- you have just written as though they were.

Only to you and because you say so; disagreeing with someone does not presume that one considers them to be pig-headed, but if this is the way in which you choose to interpret one person's difference of view from that of another, so be it - that's your prerogative.

You can’t see what’s wrong with implying that I should never have raised the question? Why on earth shouldn’t I?

Does the expression "you probably wish that you'd never asked!" not register something beyond the merely literal with you? OK, then, once again, so be it; the extent to which you posses or exercise any sense of humour is, once again, your prerogative, I suppose.

What’s wrong is the implication that anyone should have to be asked (by you?) before they dare give an opinion.

I didn't mention being asked "by me", no one has to "dare" in order to give an opinion but, for the rest, please re-read the exchange in context.

No-one called your offer of apologies ‘pompous’, since you’ve only just made it. But it’s not really an apology, is it, because you still think your statement was justified ‘[if I wasn’t] specifically being asked’? Again, why should anyone have to be ‘specifically asked’?

Again, please re-read the exchange in context.

Perhaps ‘pompous’ was the wrong word – maybe it should have been ‘arrogant’.

Or, better still, why use any word where none is necessary?

Since none of this has any bearing on welfare payments or entitlement or otherwise thereto, however, may I make a plea for a return to that topic?

[Resurrection Man]

Interesting links, thank you, AH. I looked at the first one and on a quick glance, yes, one could deduce from this that fraud at £70 million was relatively low. But when you look into the text, you soon realise that the larger amount of £630 million is in fact a very grey area and that there could reasonably be expected a high degree of fraud there as well. So the actual fraud could be closer to £700 million...a not insignificant amount.

[ahinton]

Interesting links, thank you, AH. I looked at the first one and on a quick glance, yes, one could deduce from this that fraud at £70 million was relatively low. But when you look into the text, you soon realise that the larger amount of £630 million is in fact a very grey area and that there could reasonably be expected a high degree of fraud there as well. So the actual fraud could be closer to £700 million...a not insignificant amount.

You are very welcome. If, however, "the larger amount of £630 million is in fact a very grey area and that there could reasonably be expected a high degree of fraud there as well", as you write, would it not be the case that these figures are deliberately misleading for the purpose of trying to over up the true amount of such fraud and, if so, might DWP not thereby be laying itself open to the risk that NOS and/or NAO investigate them and their publication and make mincemeat of them on the grounds of wilful attempted deception?

[JFLL]

disagreeing with someone does not presume that one considers them to be pig-headed, but if this is the way in which you choose to interpret one person's difference of view from that of another, so be it - that's your prerogative.

I was not equating disagreement as such with an imputation of pig-headedness (sigh). But thank you for allowing me my prerogative.

Does the expression "you probably wish that you'd never asked!" not register something beyond the merely literal with you? OK, then, once again, so be it; the extent to which you posses or exercise any sense of humour is, once again, your prerogative, I suppose.

Ah, so ‘it was only my little joke’, which I hadn’t the sense of humour to see. But you’ve now inserted an exclamation mark after your comment, which was not there and would certainly have signalled a joke to me. (What you actually said was 'Wishing that you'd never asked might now be something on which we can find agreement.') No exclamation mark, no joke, serious intent.

please re-read the exchange in context.

I have, and had.

why use any word where none is necessary?

Both ‘pompous’ and ‘arrogant’ were necessary, and it was high time that someone said so. (In fact, your question ‘Why use any word where none is necessary?’ is a good example of both.)

[ahinton]

I was not equating disagreement as such with an imputation of pig-headedness

Then why even mention it if you had no context in which to justify dong so?

Ah, so ‘it was only my little joke’, which I hadn’t the sense of humour to see. But you’ve now inserted an exclamation mark after your comment, which was not there and would certainly have signalled a joke to me. (What you actually said was 'Wishing that you'd never asked might now be something on which we can find agreement.') No exclamation mark, no joke, serious intent.

Ah, I see the error of my ways now; thank you, therefore, taking me to task by drawing due attention to the evident fact that, in order to indicate any possible humorous inflection, the insertion of an exclamation mark is mandatory. One more lesson learned...

I have, and had.

Fine.

Both ‘pompous’ and ‘arrogant’ were necessary, and it was high time that someone said so. (In fact, your question ‘Why use any word where none is necessary?’ is a good example of both.)

In your view and if you say so, perhaps. My question "why use any word where none is necessary?" is an example, good or otherwise, of nothing at all other than a very simple question.

The topic, the topic. my kingdom for the topic! Oh, sorry - wrong thread; should of been in the one about where it costs Leicester park a car (does that need an exclamation mark, do you think?)...

[Resurrection Man]

Why sheep, I wonder?

Been thinking about this. Herd is perfectly permissible for a lot of sheep. After all, you hear about a sheep-herder (or shepherd for short) but I've never heard of a sheep-flocker!

[ahinton]

Been thinking about this. Herd is perfectly permissible for a lot of sheep. After all, you hear about a sheep-herder (or shepherd for short) but I've never heard of a sheep-flocker!

Really? Shear coincidence! But, aside from advocating the avoidance of woolly thinking, I mutton say any more, though - apart, perhaps, from an en passant reference to lambs to the slaughter...