More Conservative Vision an Innovation....

[ahinton]

Well Mr Hinton, I was waiting to have a shower. Your toilet mind has led you astray.

Not at all, Mr Oven, since I do not have such a mind and the one that I possess instead has led me nowhere near where you appear to think that it may have done; if you stop to think about this for a moment, it should become apparent to you that I simply referred to "bathroom" in the American sense on this oscasion.

[Resurrection Man]

This news Item and the 811 (at this moment) comments below it speak volumes about what the Tories intend to do with the people who live in the wonky shed beside the Big Society....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24104743

So you support theft then? That is what benefit fraud is. Why try and make it out to be anything that it isn't?

[Resurrection Man]

What about politicians who invade other countries ?
Or police who shoot innocent people ?

This seems like a knee jerk easy target to me
Yes , of course fraud is something that should be investigated and prosecuted

though I'd support the public hanging of cyclists who ride on the pavement

Given that there is "serious" fraud , surely there must be "frivolous" fraud as well ?

You forgot about the Miner's Strike. Oh, and Margaret Thatcher.

[Resurrection Man]

Only in the weird and wacky mind of Mr.GG could some low-life drug dealer's feeble excuse for his disgusting activity be likened to the international arms trade.

It is at times like this that I really wonder what planet you are on, Mr Gong Gong. And that perhaps you have taken a few too many illegal substances yourself over the years....

Haven't you realised yet, Mr Pee. Mr GG has the Girl Guide Book of Tribulations by the side of his bed. Always a noble 'cause celebre' or Poisson Rouge for every occasion.

[MrGongGong]

You forgot about the Miner's Strike. Oh, and Margaret Thatcher.

Arse

[Resurrection Man]

Arse

LOL... a palpable hit, I think.

[Beef Oven!]

Not at all, Mr Oven, since I do not have such a mind and the one that I possess instead has led me nowhere near where you appear to think that it may have done; if you stop to think about this for a moment, it should become apparent to you that I simply referred to "bathroom" in the American sense on this oscasion.

Can, John?

[MrGongGong]

Can, John?

Holger , Cage

both excellent IMV

[Beef Oven!]

Holger , Cage

both excellent IMV

Wooh! On form tonight MrGG!

Of course I agree :-)

[ahinton]

Wooh! On form tonight MrGG!

Of course I agree :-)

But back to the topic. Yes, benefit fraudsters - by which I mean only genuine bona fide benefit fraudsters rather than benefit claimants perceived by others to be such irrespective of hard evidence in support of such a view - are no different to any other financial fraudsters and do deserve treatment under the law that is broadly analogous to that meted out to other financial fraudsters; as has been fairly noted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, the implication of which presumably being that the principal victims are bona fide benefit claimants. That said, my use of the word "perceived" is prompted by the fact that perceptions of numbers of fraudulent benefit claimants are widely encouraged in callous disregard of provable fact, hence the widepread misuse by some of the term "scroungers" as an allegedly appropriate descriptor to cover the majority of benefit claimants.

[MrGongGong]

Indeed ah
What this also does is pander to the sadly wide held belief that ALL people who are in receipt of benefits are somehow "scrounging" ...... a sad effect of this is the increasing verbal (and other) abuse that is directed and many young (and old) disabled people who are seen by many to be "scroungers". Some of the things I have been told about this are very unpleasant indeed along the lines of the "should have been smothered at birth" type of crap.
Oh yes, we are all in this together ! I think not

[Beef Oven!]

But back to the topic. Yes, benefit fraudsters - by which I mean only genuine bona fide benefit fraudsters rather than benefit claimants perceived by others to be such irrespective of hard evidence in support of such a view - are no different to any other financial fraudsters and do deserve treatment under the law that is broadly analogous to that meted out to other financial fraudsters; as has been fairly noted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, the implication of which presumably being that the principal victims are bona fide benefit claimants. That said, my use of the word "perceived" is prompted by the fact that perceptions of numbers of fraudulent benefit claimants are widely encouraged in callous disregard of provable fact, hence the widepread misuse by some of the term "scroungers" as an allegedly appropriate descriptor to cover the majority of benefit claimants.

No, your presumption is wrong. The principal victim(s) of benefits fraudsters is (are) society at large and the tax-payer.

To help de-confuse the issue there can sensibly be three types of benefits claimants:

1) Those that genuinely need some help to get back on their feet or people who have long-term disabilities and don't earn/have not earned, or perhaps saved enough money, to pay their own way (especially for those poor souls whose needs are complex and multiple and don't get nearly enough support).

2) Those that claim benefits that they are not entitled to (ranging from those people whose circumstances have nothing to do with the need for social welfare/benefits, to for example, people who do not inform their benefactor of changes to their circumstances like the use of a different medication that allows them to walk to the bus stop when previously they couldn't).

3) Those that claim benefits, not having exhausted all the other options. This subset includes those that have made a life-choice.

Scroungers is a term that should never be used in association with the first group.

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed ah
What this also does is pander to the sadly wide held belief that ALL people who are in receipt of benefits are somehow "scrounging" ...... a sad effect of this is the increasing verbal (and other) abuse that is directed and many young (and old) disabled people who are seen by many to be "scroungers". Some of the things I have been told about this are very unpleasant indeed along the lines of the "should have been smothered at birth" type of crap.
Oh yes, we are all in this together ! I think not

Agreed (see definition below). The 'verbal and other abuse' need be directed at no one, and certainly not at those in the first group that I have delineated for you.

[MrGongGong]

Scroungers is a term that should never be used in association with the first group.

So why do politicians knowingly mix all of these together ?
The comedy chav folks who are the mainstay of mr Kyle are assumed by a huge number of folks to be typical of most people who receive benefits.........

One important thing to remember is that you can't tell by looking who has a disability and who doesn't, I know someone with MS who on a "good" day can stagger to the bus stop but the rest of the time needs a wheelchair (for example)

[Beef Oven!]

So why do politicians knowingly mix all of these together ?
The comedy chav folks who are the mainstay of mr Kyle are assumed by a huge number of folks to be typical of most people who receive benefits.........

One important thing to remember is that you can't tell by looking who has a disability and who doesn't, I know someone with MS who on a "good" day can stagger to the bus stop but the rest of the time needs a wheelchair (for example)

You know why politicians knowingly mix all these things together, don't ask silly questions.

A friend of mine, not an MS sufferer, also can manage the bus stop on a good day, and then is rogered for the rest of the day. These people are covered the in the first group and may need more assistance than is currently provided for.